Proposal:  Erect part three/part four storey rear extension, form third and fourth floors to form six self-contained flats, alter elevations, layout parking and bin store and form vehicular access onto Tankerville Drive

Applicant:  Mr M Saunders

Agent:  Town Planning Experts

Ms Bailey, a local resident, spoke as an objector to the application.

Resolved:  That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:

01  The proposed development would by reason of its design, height, scale, bulk, appear as an overly dominant and incongruous addition that is out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property, the streetscene and the area more widely. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy (2007) Policies KP2 and CP4, Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document (2015) and advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

02  The proposed development would by reason of its siting, size, bulk, massing and scale result in a visually obtrusive and overbearing form of development which causes an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the detriment of amenities enjoyed by existing occupiers of 7 Tankerville Drive contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DM1 and DM3 of Development Management Document (2015), and the advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

03 The proposal would, by reason of the limited internal size of a number of the dwellings and the provision of insufficient outdoor amenity space and refuse and cycle storage, result in a poor quality living environment for future occupiers to the detriment of their amenity. This would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the guidance contained within the National Technical Housing Standards (2015).

04  The proposed development, by reason of the insufficient provision of parking, would cause additional on street parking in an area of existing parking stress to the detriment highway safety and the local highway network, contrary to the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework Section 4, Development Management Document (2015) Policy DM15 and Core Strategy (2007) policy CP3.

05 The proposed vehicular crossover, by reason of the extent of hardstanding proposed and its proximity to existing street trees, would be likely to result in their loss. This would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document (2015) and the advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

Informative

Please note that this application would be liable for a payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) if planning permission had been granted. Therefore if an appeal is lodged and subsequently allowed, the CIL liability will be applied. Any revised application would also be CIL liable.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal.  The detailed analysis is set out in a report prepared by officers. In the circumstances the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority is willing to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development, should the applicant wish to exercise this option in accordance with the Council's pre-application advice service.