Proposal:  Demolish existing buildings, including 6 Crosby Road, erect three storey building comprising 20 self-contained flats, 6 no dwelling houses, layout parking, hard and soft landscaping and extend existing vehicular access on to Crosby Road.

Applicant:  BESB Contracts Ltd

Agent:  Phase 2 Planning

Resolved:-

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01  The south-western part of the application site constitutes designated protected green space which would be lost as a result of this development. The application has failed to clearly demonstrate that the open space is surplus to requirements or that it will be replaced and the development does not provide an alternative sport or recreation facility to replace the space lost. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies KP2 and CP7 of the Core Strategy (2007).

02  The proposal would, by reason of its size, scale, bulk, mass, siting beyond the established building line and detailed design, constitute a cramped,  contrived and incongruous development that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. This is unacceptable and contrary to 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). 

03  By virtue of the design, layout and siting of the car parking and access road proposed within the site, the development would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling at No.125 Crowstone Road. The development is therefore unacceptable and 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).

04   A number of the proposed flats would provide unacceptable levels of amenities for their future occupiers by virtue of their inadequate size in terms of internal floorspace and bedroom size, the insufficient outside amenity areas proposed and the poor levels of light and outlook provided to habitable rooms. The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the 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 advice contained within the Design and Townscape Guide (2009).

05  The application does not include a formal undertaking to secure a contribution to affordable housing provision to meet the demand for such housing in the area. The submission also lacks a formal undertaking to secure a contribution to the delivery of education facilities to meet the need for such infrastructure generated by the development. In the absence of these undertakings the application is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies KP2, KP3, CP6 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

06  The submission does not clearly demonstrate that the proposal would provide a development that is appropriately accessible and adaptable for all members of the community in accordance with the requirements of the M4(2) accessibility standards. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015).

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.

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.