Report to Regulatory Committee - 10 June 2009 Development Control
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report To Regulatory Committee - 10 June 2009 Development Control Subject : Appeal Decisions Quarterly Summary Report Report Ref : Appeals Quarterly Report Ward(s) : All Report Of : Head of Planning and Transport Derek Vout - Direct Line (01256) 845403. Contact : E-mail - [email protected] Reporting Dates : 1st February 2009 to 30th April 2009 Papers relied on to Appeal Decisions published by The Planning Inspectorate. produce this http://www.planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk report: Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN SUMMARY 1.0 This Report : 1.1 Attached as Appendix A and B is a summary analysis of the appeal decisions received from the 1st February 2009 to 30th April 2009. This highlights some of the issues drawn out by the Inspectors in arriving at their decision and which should be taken into account when future decisions are made, but is by no means a summary of all the issues referred to in the Inspectors’ decision notices. 1.2 Those decisions of particular note have been more fully detailed in Appendix A. A full copy of the decision letters can be requested from the contact above. 1.3 Any comments or suggestions on this quarterly report are welcomed from Members. Members may want to note that the next Appeal Summary Report will be reported to the September 2009 Development Control Committee meeting. 1.4 Any costs decisions are reported with each planning appeal. The agreed amount is finalised sometime after the appeal decision is issued. Between 1st February 2008 and 30th April 2009 there have been no settlements to report to members. 1 of 15 2 Priorities, Impacts and Risks Contribution To Council Priorities This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Council Plan Ref 06-09: Priority 3 Service Plan Ref 06-09: PL9 Other References: Contribution To Community Strategy Community Strategy Ref 03-06: Impacts No Some Significant Type significant impacts impacts impacts Impacts for Financial BDBC Personnel Legal Impacts on Equality and Diversity Wellbeing Crime and Disorder Health Environment Economic Involving Communication/Consultation Others Partners Risk Assessment Number of risks identified: Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium: Yes Strategic: Already identified on Corporate Risk Register? No Yes Operational: Already identified in Service Plans? No 2 of 15 APPENDIX A 04/02/2009 60/60a Hill Road, Oakley BDB 67282 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse The development proposed is demolition of two existing bungalows, erection of 3 No. 2 storey houses and 2 No. 2 storey units comprising 4 No. 1 bed flats and creation of new vehicular access. The limited opportunity for soft landscaping along the eastern boundary and the amount of hard surfacing to the long access road, together with the proposed parking spaces along the access road would all combine to create an urban feel which would be out of character with the more open appearance and character of development in the local area. The proposed siting of the front building block in relation to No. 1 Safoin Lane and the proximity of its gable flank elevation to the boundary would combine to dominate the outlook to the rear for the adjoining neighbours, particularly from within their rear garden area. The concentration of the parking and turning area in close proximity to the rear boundary would cause noise and disturbance to neighbours, particularly when in their rear gardens, where they might reasonably be expected to enjoy relative quiet and seclusion. There would be a need for some cars to overhang the carriageway when exiting the site in order to gain full visibility to the east, and this combined with the characteristics of the highway would add a compromise to highway manoeuvres. Policies referred : A1, A2, E1 and D5 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG - Oakley and Deane Village Design Guide SPG - Places to Live SPG - Residential Parking Standards 04/02/2009 3 Church Brook, Tadley BDB/67421/67422/EC/07/00234 Part Allowed Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Refuse Final Decision: Refuse The planning applications (part retrospective) and enforcement notice concerned works proposed in Listed Building Application BDB/67422, and development proposed in planning Application BDB/67421, that being: 1. Retention of replacement barn with proposed alterations to southern elevation; 2. Retention of two storey extension with casements painted to match those on the listed cottage; 3. Retention of single-storey extension with conservation rooflight in south elevation and proposed weatherboard cladding; 4. Retention of covered walkway between items 1 and 3 with proposed oak frame and glazed elevations; 5. Retention of double garage; 6. Retention of extension to garage with proposed alterations to roof; 7. Alterations to porch; 8. Retention of timber clad boiler housing; 3 of 15 9. Internal alterations and refurbishment of cottage (revision to BDB/56539 – retrospective) (Listed building consent application BDB/67422 only) The Inspector concluded that the form and size of the barn and the two storey extension do not harm the special architectural character or historic interest of the listed building and its setting. Also, the windows in the extensions are acceptable. The Inspector therefore granted planning permission and listed building consent (where appropriate) for those items. The Inspector found that the link, porch, single storey extension and the ‘as built’ windows in the barn have a detrimental impact on the listed building and its setting and the Inspector therefore upholds the enforcement notice and listed building enforcement notice in respect of these items and refuses to grant planning permission and listed building consent for them. Policies referred : E1 and E2 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan E16 – Hampshire County Structure Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001) SPG - The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings 12/02/2009 Bonnyrigg, Byes Lane, Silchester BDB 68472 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse The development proposed is demolition of bungalow and erection of replacement house. Taken in isolation from its context the proposal has more architectural merit than the existing bungalow. However, the existing bungalow is relatively unobtrusive. The greater bulk of the proposed house and its design form would be noticeably more prominent and imposing in its landscape setting. This would harmfully undermine the rural character of the area. Policies referred : D6, E1, E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Silchester Village Design Statement 4 of 15 09/03/2009 17 Alliston Way, Whitchurch BDB 68640 Dismissed Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Refuse Final Decision: Refuse The development proposed is the change of use of public open space to residential curtilage and enclose by a 1.8m fence. Although the area proposed to be enclosed is not large, the presence of the fence would have the effect of reducing the openness of the estate. Taking into consideration only the plans submitted with the original application, there is insufficient evidence to show that the visibility splays required in line with MfS could be achieved. Policies referred : C7, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 10/03/2009 27 Verdi Close, Basingstoke BDB 69014 Allowed Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Allow Final Decision: Refuse The development proposed is conversion to two self contained flats. Given the location of the proposed bin store, a structure of the scale proposed would be very conspicuous. There is however the potential for accommodating a split bin storage with some to the front and some to the rear of the property. The creation of a second front door would not unduly affect the appearance of the property. While there would be some loss of the present symmetry between Nos 26 and 27, the new porch would be a relatively minor feature that would be subservient to the present front elevation to No.27. COST application - refused The members had good grounds for concluding as they did about the impact of the bin enclosure, given the plans submitted. Regarding the effect upon symmetry of a second front door and a covered porch, the Inspector felt that the council could not be faulted for considering this matter which is one referred to in the now adopted SPD. Policies referred : E1 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 5 of 15 24/03/2009 41 Mortimer Gardens, Tadley BDB 68877 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation: Refuse The development proposed is the partial demolition of existing garage and utility extension and construction of 2 self contained flats. To provide access to the proposed first floor flat, a covered stairway would be provided to the side of the proposed extension. The combination of the reduced width and height, the detailing of the stairway door and the positioning of the doors would make the proposed overall extension appear unbalanced, incongruous, and out of keeping with other dwellings in the adjoining terrace. To the rear of the proposed extension, light would be provided to the living room and kitchen of the first floor extension by a relatively large flat roofed dormer window. This would be completely out of keeping with the details exhibited by the other dwellings in the existing terrace. Policies referred : E1 and C3 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan SPG Design Guide 2 - Extending Your Home (2001) SPD Housing Mix and Mobility Standards 24/03/2009 41 Mortimer Gardens, Tadley BDB 69363 Allowed Decision Level : Committee Recommendation: Allow Final Decision: Refuse The development proposed is the alteration to existing garage and utility extension and extension to that to form new 2 bedroom house. The appearance of the front elevation of the proposed dwelling would be characteristic of others within the terrace, being of a similar size and scale and having a similar porch detail to the door, which would itself be situated so as to be in keeping with the spacing and rhythm of adjacent doors.