Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/045

Planning Application - 9no. dwellings (Demolition of existing garages)

Planning Application - 9no. dwellings (Demolition of existing garages)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel; having been referred to the Panel at the request of Ward Member (Haverhill Central) Councillor Aaron Luccarini.

Haverhill Town Council had raised objections to the scheme which was in contrast to the Officer recommendation of approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 62 of Report No DEV/WS/19/045.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.  Attention was drawn to the supplementary late paper which had been circulated following publication of the agenda and which set out a superseded site plan.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that further public late representations had been received which largely covered earlier points raised by local residents.  These had been forwarded to Members of the Committee for their reference.

Speakers:    Donna Anderson (neighbouring resident) spoke against the application

                   The Chair advised that Ward Member (Haverhill Central) Councillor Aaron Luccarini had registered to speak at the Committee but had been unable to attend the meeting.  Instead, Councillor Luccarini had emailed all Members of the Committee directly with his written representation

                   Scott Bailey (Havebury – applicant) spoke in support of the application

A number of Members voiced comment on the application with the majority raising concerns in respect of the scheme being out of keeping with the surrounding area and overbearing.

Councillor Jason Crooks proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, on the basis of it being inappropriate for the site and overdevelopment.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, then the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked.  She further advised on the Policies that could be appended to the reasons for refusal as being: CS3 DM2 and DM22.

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, for the following reasons:

1.   Existing development in Paske Avenue is characterised by small two-storey red brick semi-detached houses generally of a uniform scale and appearance. The scale, design and appearance of the 3-storey flat block is out-of-keeping with the adjoining development,  resulting in an awkward and dominant relationship harmful to the appearance of the street scene.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS3, Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22, and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2.   This small (0.14 hectare) site is at the end of a residential cul-de-sac adjacent to a large bus-depot building and has a narrow tapered shape at its southern end. The need to accommodate parking, access, cycle storage and turning space has resulted in a flat block with no outside amenity garden space. The proposed 3-storey flat block would also dominate the site and have an over-bearing impact on the proposed bungalows and the neighbouring dwellings on Paske Avenue. For these reasons a proposal of 9 dwellings is considered to be over-development of the site, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS3, Joint Development Management Policies DM2 and DM22, and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).