Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey side extension, first floor rear and side extensions and change of use of building from Public House and three bedroom flat to C3 Residential to create 4no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (as amended by plans received November 2020).

Councillor Sean Prendergast declared an interest in that his mother-in-law owned a neighbouring property and advised that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/01098/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 53 minutes 03 seconds

 

Two storey side extension, first floor rear and side extensions and change of use of building from Public House and three bedroom flat to C3 Residential to create 4no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (as amended by plans received November 2020).

 

Councillor Sean Prendergast declared an interest in that his mother-in-law owned a property in Pinnocks Lane which was at the back of the proposed development and advised that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01098/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Mike Rice.

 

Points raised included:

 

·                The parking spaces provided would be challenging for larger vehicles to use due to the lack of space in the parking area shown in the plans.

 

In response to questions raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·                Each car parking space had standard dimensions (approx. 4.8m x approx. 2.14m);

·                The Parking SPD dictated that a two bedroomed property would require two spaces and a one bedroomed property would require one space, so to meet the policy, the development would require 10 parking spaces but it only had 4;

·                As this was a sustainable location, a view could be taken on providing fewer spaces, in accordance with the Parking SPD;

·                More spaces had originally been included but Highways had requested that spaces only be provided that would allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear.

 

Mr Doug Neath thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01098/FP.

 

Mr Neath gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                He was representing the residents who had complained;

·                They had no objection to the change of use but they objected to a number of serious issues, particularly the extension intended to be built on the existing beer garden;

·                There were insufficient parking spaces and new residents may try find alternative parking in Pinnocks Lane and Pinnocks Close, where parking was already very limited;

·                If the County Council’s proposal to introduce double yellow lines along part of these roads went ahead there would not be enough places for residents to park, and they too may have to resort to parking in the High Street causing even more congestion;

·                There were concerns over the impact of the proposed extension on the residents in Pinnocks Lane - the height of the proposed extension would greatly diminish the outlook of the properties and would drastically cut down the amount of sunlight reaching them. Some of the residents were keen gardeners who grew flowers and vegetables all year round, and this would seriously affect their ability to continue to do so;

·                The extension included three windows which were close to, and overlooked the neighbouring properties, therefore seriously affecting their right to privacy;

·                The proposed balcony was extremely close and overlooked the gardens of numbers 3 and 5 Pinnocks Lane leading to a lack of privacy and there was concern over any increased noise levels which may arise from residents using the balcony;

·                The site had no provision for any communal area for the occupants to sit outside, or for children to play, nor space to undertake any outside tasks such as drying clothes or washing cars;

·                It was felt that the development had been designed to fit as many flats as possible onto the site without any thought for those living there or the surrounding neighbourhood;

·                It was considered that the development did not make the best use of the existing building, there was little attempt to make it environmentally friendly, e.g. use of solar panels, and it will not provide a healthy and friendly environment in which to live.

 

The following Members asked questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen.

 

Mr Neath responded to questions including:

 

·                Residents had received a letter in January from the County Council proposing double yellow lines in the area to ease the flow of traffic;

·                The development would block the sun from neighbouring gardens in the afternoons.

 

Councillor Jim McNally, Member Advocate, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/01098/FP.

 

Councillor Jim McNally gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                Residents and businesses were not against the change of use but there were serious concerns about the density of the development, its design in relation to waste bin provision, and the lack of parking which would seriously impact on the local area;

·                There did not seem to be adequate space provided for refuse and recycling bins for each dwelling at the development;

·                The development did not adhere to the parking policy set out in the Local Plan;

·                The parking bays which were provided were small with little room for manoeuvre which could encourage neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour;

·                The on-street parking outside the development was already very busy;

·                Parking in the Pinnocks Lane area was already over-subscribed and the situation critical.

 

Mr Tom Donovan thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/01098/FP.

 

Mr Donovan gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                The applicant believed that the scheme proposed represented the most sensible use of the site in contributing housing to the shortfall in the district;

·                The site was no longer viable as a public house;

·                These units were deliverable in the short-term;

·                Four parking spaces had been provided which represented a compromise between allocating some car parking and making the development appealing to those who did not have a private vehicle;

·                The location was sustainable in proximity to shops and local businesses as well as bus and rail facilities – the SPD contained a mechanism to allow reduction in parking provision in such a situation;

·                Other developments had been approved recently with no parking given their highly sustainable locations;

·                The Highways Authority had confirmed that the four parking spaces met the necessary standards and were acceptable;

·                The discouragement of car parking at the site supported the Council’s aim to reduce carbon as alternative methods of transport were being encouraged;

·                The balcony in the design had been removed following negotiations;

·                Waste provision was intended to be compliant with the Council’s waste standards using communal bins provided in the usual way.

 

The following Member asked a questions of clarification:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Daniel Allen;

·                Councillor Tony Hunter;

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Mike Rice;

·                Councillor Tom Tyson.

 

Comments from Members included:

 

·                This was considered to be a good development but parking was a concern for several Members, particularly knowing how bad the parking was in that area;

·                The loss of privacy and daylight had been dealt with in the report;

·                Refusal on the grounds of lack of parking provision was unlikely to be successful at appeal due to Town Centre developments often being built without any parking;

·                A smaller development (less flats) might be more suitable as less parking spaces would be required;

·                The location was sustainable with a bus stop and being in the Town Centre;

·                There were concerns over proposals to put in double yellow lines in the area which would further reduce the amount of parking available;

·                Residents of recent developments which had been approved without parking were finding it a struggle.

 

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed, Councillor David Levett seconded, and upon being put to the vote it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/01098/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.