Agenda item

The application was for dormer roof extensions, roof lights and fenestration alterations in connection with the residential use approved under prior approval 19/0271.

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, however, it had been called in for determination by the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Valerie White due to concerns about overdevelopment of the site which would cause parking issues and highway issues.

 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

 

“UPDATE

 

Correction (pages 83 and 87)

 

The proposed parking provision for the 79 flats is 80 spaces rather than 87, as referred to in paras 4.4 and 7.6.1 of the committee report. This provision is subject to the separate Prior Approval application (19/2321/GPD) pending decision. A total of 87 spaces were proposed for the previous Prior Approval applications for 85, 84 and 83 units (with the 83 unit scheme approved only).

 

Clarifications on assessment of current applications

 

An additional planning application (20/0012/FFU) has been received for 4 x 3-bed dwellings and 1 x 4-bed dwelling to the south of the site. This is outside of the red line boundary of the subject application and will be considered on its own planning merits.

 

The current live applications at this site are therefore as follows:

 

·         19/0675 - Installation of rooflights and fenestration alterations in connection with the residential use approved under Prior Approval 19/0271.

·         19/2321/GPD - Application for the prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the General Permitted Development Order for the conversion of the existing building to provide 79 flats across three floors.

·         20/0012/FFU - Erection of 5 dwellings comprising 4 x 3 bed semi-detached and 1 x 4 bed detached with associated landscaping and parking.

 

The planning considerations vary for each of the above applications, and it is necessary to clarify how each application relates to each other:

 

The application before Committee relates to external alterations to the existing building only. As such, the key issues to be considered include impact on character (Section 7.4 of the committee report) and impact on neighbouring amenity (Section 7.5).

 

Impact on highways (Section 7.6) is subject to the current 19/2321/GPD Prior Approval application.

 

The 20/0012/FFU application for five dwellings to the south is subject to full policy consideration, as like any other full planning application. These proposed houses would be provided with their own parking and would be outside of the other application site boundary for the flats. Therefore, the dwellings would not utilise any parking spaces proposed for the flats.

 

Representations

 

One additional objection has been received, summarised below:

 

·         Out of character

[See Section 7.4]

·         Overbearing impact, overlooking and loss of amenity to neighbouring properties

·         Flats are below the nationally described space standard

[See Section 7.5]

·         With all the extra cars this development would generate, residents will not want to cycle

·         Will charging points be provided for the all-electric cars of the future?

[Officer comment: See Section 7.6. A condition could be imposed under the 19/2321/GPD Prior Approval, if granted, requiring provision of fast charge sockets. This approach was taken under the previous 19/0271 Prior Approval as set out in the Annex on Page 93]

·         Site is in a flood risk zone - will any of them be able to obtain insurance cover?

[Officer comment: See Section 7.9. Flood risk is a formal consideration under the 19/2321/GPD Prior Notification]

·         No need for this type of accommodation in Bagshot

·         Better to provide good quality homes for fewer people, including small families who have trouble finding suitable lower-cost homes in the area

[Officer comment: The site is subject to a Prior Approval application via a Government Development Order. This is therefore not a full planning application, and is subject to stipulated criteria which do not cover the above considerations.]

·         Article 4 directions could be used to protect the wellbeing and amenity of existing and new residents

[Officer comment: It is not considered that an Article 4 Direction to cover this site would be successful, given its location outside of a defined Core Employment Area]

 

Representations received on other live applications (for information purposes only)

 

The additional objector also comments that this application has been held on the interim publisher and that many more objections have been received under the other current applications. Whilst these representations will be considered separately under their respective application, the comments received to date on these other live applications are summarised below, for information purposes only:

 

·         19/2321/GPD (Prior Approval application) - 18 objections received from 14 addresses so far, raising the following additional concerns:

-        Overdevelopment of site

-       Insufficient amenity space

-       Increased pollution (cars, noise – additional impacts on weekends)

-       Will add to congestion on Green Lane – many cars already parked on roadside – school located at end of road

-       Additional weekend traffic

-       Whitmoor Road is already congested – links to Connaught Park estate and A322

-       Previous office use rarely saw car park full

-       Inadequate parking for flats and visitors

-       Inadequate public transport

-       Tree line around site needs to be protected and maintained

-       Effect on local ecology

-       Impact on local facilities – school, health, jobs

-       No evidence of storage of domestic waste

-       One bed flats will not attract families and will spoil ethos of area

-       This type of development is not the answer to any housing shortage

-       Development has been maximised for profit rather than providing quality housing

-       Previous approval for 35 units is more reasonable use of the site

-       The development is near the local Junior school which (also the venue for the local youth club). surrounded by family housing and opposite Mead Court sheltered housing. Allowing such a development in this location and the potential social issues that could arise is not acceptable

-       Councils are withdrawing their tenants from such accommodation

-       Impact on property prices

 

·         20/0012/FFU (5 new dwellings) - 5 objections received so far, summarised below: 

-       Would not be opposed to 5 houses, but if flats are granted the parking for the flats will be lost”.

Members felt there was a balance to be struck between the negation of overlooking effects and the promotion of a good quality of life to occupants of the second floor apartments. As a result a condition was added to the recommendation to stipulate the restricted opening of the roof lighting to allow some element of fresh air.

 

In addition, whilst such concerns were not considered in the voting on the application, it was noted that none of the Committee were supportive of the internal design of the proposal and had reservations in respect of the standard of the proposed accommodation.

 

The Officer’s recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, and put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that

                     I.        Application 19/0675 be granted subject to the conditions in the Officer Report as amended; and

                    II.        the final wording on the new condition be delegated to the Executive Head of Regulatory in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee and the relevant Ward Councillor.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that all Committee Members had received correspondence on the application.

 

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to grant the application:

 

Councillors Cliff Betton, Sarah Jane Croke, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Darryl Ratiram, Graham Tapper and Victoria Wheeler.

 

Voting against the recommendation to grant the application:

 

Councillors Peter Barnett and Valerie White.

 

Voting in abstention on the recommendation to grant the application:

 

Councillors Graham Alleway, Morgan Rise and Helen Whitcroft.