-
Agenda item
56 Alma Terrace
Minutes:
Proposal:
Approval of reserved matters relating to the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of outline planning permission HS/OA/15/00211 (Conditions 1 & 2) – Proposed demolition of chalet bungalow and garage and construction of 10 No. new dwellings.
Application No:
HS/DS/16/00485
Existing Use:
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Public Consultation
Single dwellinghouse
No
No
11 letters of objection and 1 petition received.
Having declared their prejudicial interests, Councillors Scott and Dowling were absent from the Chamber during discussion and voting on this item.
The Planning Services Manager, Mrs Evans, presented this report for approval of reserved matters relating to the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of outline planning permission HS/OA/15/00211 (Conditions 1 & 2) – Proposed demolition of chalet bungalow and garage and construction of 10 No. new dwellings.
Members were informed of an update to the report:-
· Since the agenda was published the applicant has submitted a schedule of materials alongside samples to be used in the development. Recommended condition 2 has therefore been changed to read as:-
The external materials of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ‘Material Schedule’ submitted on 03 April 2017.
Reason 2: Remains unchanged from that noted in the officer’s report.
Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site.
The site is currently occupied by a detached bungalow, the majority of development surrounding the site is two-storey terrace or semi-detached properties. Outline consent has been granted for 10 dwellings. It is proposed that the 10 dwellings will be separated into 8 x semi-detached (plots 1-8) and 2 x detached (plots 9 and 10) houses. Each property will have two off-street parking spaces and storage for wheeled bins. The old householder vehicular access onto Burry Road is to be widened.
The Planning Services Manager reminded members that this is a reserved matters application which follows an outline application for 10 dwellings which was granted in October 2015 at Planning Committee. All other plans submitted with the outline consent are indicative and showed members at the time what potentially the site could be, but not definitively what it would be. She said that Officers had considered this application to be acceptable, however there were some elements of the proposal which were borderline.
The Planning Manager explained that although the application was recommended for approval there were elements of the application which were more borderline that should consider. She advised that no objections had been received from any of the statutory consultees.
· Bulk and massing of plot 1 – perceived overlooking is a material consideration.
· The buildings will appear as three storey building although they only have two levels.
· The gardens’ terraces and balconies and side elevation windows of plot 1 and overlooking arising from same. The decking area was not shown in the outline consent.
· Side elevation of building of plot 8 – The design, detail and soft landscaping.
· Concerns regarding the degree of soft landscaping. She stated that there could be substantial improvements to the landscaping scheme.
Sarah Crunden, Petitioner, spoke against the application, she raised concerns regarding access, traffic, parking problems, health and safety issues, access for emergency service / refuse vehicles and wildlife. She said the development will be detrimental to the character and fabric of the area. Furthermore, neighbouring properties will be overlooked and light will be blocked. She spoke regarding the effect of the application on residents and asked the committee members not to destroy the area.
Cos Polito, the agent for the application, spoke in support of the application. He said the committee had already accepted the principle of 10 dwellings by granting the outline permission, with reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, plans and scale. He listed the benefits of the development:- it would be compatible with the local character of the area; would not harm neighbouring residential amenities, would not result in poor highway safety, could provide decent accommodation, would not harm biodiversity or trees and could provide adequately for service water drainage. He said that no objection had been raised by consultees on highways, ecology, arboricultural, foul and surface water drainage, waste or environmental grounds. The layout of the houses will not harm the amenities of neighbouring residents through overlooking, over dominance or disturbance from parking areas. Therefore, no adverse impacts have been identified to withhold permission.
Councillor Wincott asked if there was a badger sett within the development. Mr Polito confirmed that it had not been identified in the ecology report, he was not aware of any badger setts.
Councillor Fitzgerald, Ward Councillor for Silverhill Ward, was present and spoke against the application. He said the character of the area will be devastated, there is potential for further development and the dissemination of a well-connected local community. The Statement of Community Involvement, para 5.5, refers to the definition of a major planning application which is a development of 10 or more dwellings. Para 5.6, states that a controversial application is one where there is likely to be concern regarding potential for social, economic and environmental impact on the community effected by the proposals, so this application is both major and controversial but has been ignored. He said the developer should have been encourage to engage and consult with the local community through publicity etc, this never happened. Policy H3, provision of affordable housing, where you have development of 10 or more units on a brownfield site, 20% should be affordable housing, and on a greenfield site, 40% should be affordable housing. Ignored community involvement and affordable housing policy. Southern Water said conditions regarding no development or new tree planting should be located within 3m of the centre, and no new soakaways within 5m of public Sewer. The Borough Arborculturalist said tree depletion of Borough Road boundary will greatly change the feel. To mitigate the loss he expects to see significant tree planting on either side of proposed road. Can lose some of the trees under TPO but you have to plant more, to accommodate 10 dwellings you have to move the sewer. It runs exactly where the Borough Arbiculturalist said that new tree planting should be, but Southern Water say you can’t do that. Applicant has to employ private sewer company to look after drainage. Drainage system is floored because it doesn’t fit the site.
The Planning Services Manager addressed the issues raised by the petitioner and ward councillor. She said although there had been dialogue between the planning officer and all the consultee’s there is no objection from southern water, highways or the arboricultural officer. Regarding affordable housing, this application is for 9 net new dwellings. Because of government changes, there is no requirement from the authority for affordable housing. Regarding Category B and C trees, the trees are classified from A,B,C and R, U. Category A trees are protected by TPO’s, they have high amenity value of which the council would wish to see retained. Category C trees shouldn’t prohibit or get in the way of the development if a site. Category U and R trees need to be felled. Regarding the width of the road, she said highways have looked at this, and have advised there no objection to this proposal, and say there is enough parking and the turning on the site is sufficient. As outline consent has already been approved, she said it would be inappropriate to refuse the application on highway grounds, because of the same amount of vehicle movements, same access is used as proposed in the outline consent.
Councillor Clarke raised concern regarding lack of parking capacity, he asked if the layout could be adjusted to give additional parking within the development. The Planning Services Manager said visitor parking had been provided and that highways believe parking is sufficient for additional visitors. If you provide more hardstanding within the site it would take away the soft landscaping.
Councillor Webb asked the Planning Services Manager to confirm whether a badger sett existed at the site, given the difference of option between the petitioner and applicant. The Planning Services Manager said the ecologist had said there are no arboricultural matters to consider. If there was a badger sett on site he would have required it be dealt with.
Councillor Sinden raised concern regarding the proposed drainage system which he said will cause problems during the build.
Councillor Rogers proposed a motion against the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the resolution below. This was seconded by Councillor Sinden.
RESOLVED – (unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the following reasons.
1. The proposed development, by reason of the height, mass and bulk of dwelling proposed at plot 1 and associated balcony screening, combined with the proximity to the north eastern side boundary of the site, would result in an overbearing and dominating form of development that would harmfully affect the outlook of the residential amenities of occupants at no. 100 Burry Road. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies DM1 criterion e) and DM3 of the Hastings Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015) and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The proposed side elevation of plot 8, where is faces onto the access road, would have insufficient design detail relative to its prominent position in the site. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policy DM1 of the Hastings Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015), paragraphs 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 002 Reference ID: 26-002-20140306 of the National Planning Policy Guidance and guidance within Housing and Community Agency’s 'Urban Design Lesson - Housing Layout and Neighbourhood Quality' (January 2014).
3. The proposed development would fail to provide sufficient levels of soft landscaping to support the proposed built form. The proposed layout would therefore represent poor design that fails to take opportunities to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions as advocated by paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies DM1 and DM3 of the Hastings Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015), paragraphs 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework and paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Guidance ID Reference ID: 26-026-20140306.
Supporting documents:
- MAP_56 Alma Terrace - HS_DS_16_00485_, item 171a PDF 417 KB
- 56 Alma Terrace - HS-DS-16-00485, item 171a PDF 143 KB
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.