Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/18/010

Planning Application - 7no. dwellings and 25no. parking spaces (following demolition of 43no. garages)

Planning Application - 7no. dwellings and 25no. parking spaces (following demolition of 43no. garages)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee as it was one of five applications across five sites, totalling 41 dwellings, which had raised issues of significant concern to local residents.

Mildenhall Parish Council and the Highways Authority objected to the proposal and Officers were recommending that the application be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 75 of Report No: DEV/FH/18/010.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following updates/corrections since publication of the agenda:

·         Paragraph 34 of the report should have referred to “…27 off-street parking places” (as opposed to 25);

·         Paragraph 38 should have identified a “…shortfall of 15 places.” as opposed to 19.

·         Paragraph 41 should have made reference to “…all existing rented garages…” of which the applicant has advised totals 11;

·         Lastly, attention was drawn to the supplement issued as an addendum to the agenda (following publication of the revised NPPF) and the amended recommendations set out therein for this report.  The Officer also advised that Paragraph 63 as quoted in revised Recommendation 2 should have read Paragraph 227.

In his presentation the Case Officer included proposed elevations and street scenes of the development alongside photographs which illustrated the degree of layby and on-street parking which took place in Downing Close.

Whilst the benefits of the scheme (housing supply and job creation) were recognised, Officers did not consider that these outweighed the potential harmful impacts of the development these being; the overshadowing and impact on amenity, the design and appearance and the severe impact on the highway due to the shortfall of parking provision that would have to be accommodated on the highway network.

Speakers:    Jean Berrigan (resident) spoke against the application

                   Lee Webster (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Councillor Louis Busuttil was invited to speak first by the Chairman, in his capacity as Ward Member (Great Heath) for the application.  Councillor Busuttil spoke in support of the Officer recommendation for refusal and stated that, whilst he welcomed proposals for affordable housing, he considered that the development would create a severe parking/highway issue.  Accordingly, he moved the recommendation for refusal and this was duly seconded by Councillor Carol Lynch.

With the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The development would lead to a shortfall of parking provision that would have to be accommodated on the highway network. Taking into account the existing parking pressures in the area, this additional on-street parking would lead to a severe impact on the highway due to obstructive and inconsiderate parking which would affect all users including emergency service vehicles and pedestrians. On this basis the application is contrary to Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22 and paragraphs 108,110 and 127 of the revised NPPF;

2. The design and layout of the scheme fails to meet the requirements of good and appropriate design as required by local policy and paragraph 227 of the NPPF. Plot 7 has a garden size that has been sacrificed to allow for the provision of off-street parking, resulting in a cramped appearance with a lack of circulation space. The presence of an electrical sub-station with a separation distance of only 4 metres from the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling further reduces the amenity levels for this dwelling. This plot performs poorly in terms of design and appearance and is contrary to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS5, Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22, and paragraphs 124, and 127 of the revised NPPF; and

3. Due to the harmful overshadowing impact on no. 14 Downing Close, the proposal fails to accord with the design and layout requirements of Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22 and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the revised NPPF with respect to the consideration of neighbouring residential amenity.