Proposal:  Demolish existing buildings and erect a part 3, part 4 storey block, comprising 20 apartments with associated parking and amenity space, and form vehicular access onto Redstock Road

Applicant:  Mr Chris Morris

Agent:  Marcus Bennett Associates 

Mr Clark, a local resident, spoke as an objector to the application.  Mr Bennett, the applicant’s agent, responded.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

01  The proposed development, by reason of its size, scale, bulk, mass, siting, detailed design and lack of opportunities for soft landscaping, results in an overly dominant, contrived and incongruous scheme which would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2012), 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). 

02  The design, size, siting, bulk and mass of the proposed development are such that it would be overbearing, dominant and result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling to the west at No.26 Redstock Road. The development is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), 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  The development proposed fails to provide an appropriate dwelling mix that would reflect the Borough's identified housing need for larger family sized dwellings, resulting in the scheme failing to deliver a sufficiently wide choice of homes. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy KP2 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM7 of the Development Management Document (2015)

04  The proposed communal amenity deck, by virtue of the design of the pedestrian access arrangements and their relationship with the main habitable rooms serving flat 7 would result in material overlooking, loss of privacy, noise and disturbance and substandard living conditions to the occupiers of this dwelling providing a poor quality residential environment.  The proposal is therefore unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), 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 fails to demonstrate that the proposal would provide a development that is appropriately accessible and adaptable for all members of the community, includes stepped access to the main entrance, cycle and refuse store and information has not been submitted to demonstrate that the new dwellings would meet the M4(2) and M4(3) accessibility standards. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of the Development Management Document (2015).

06  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 and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that such a contribution would make the scheme economically unviable. In the absence of this undertaking the application is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policies KP2, KP3, CP6 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DM7 of the Development Management Policies 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:

01  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.