Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Robert Bellamy, the Applicant.

Mr Bellamy thanked the committee for giving him the opportunity to represent his family at the meeting and added that he has lived in Parson Drove all his life and intends to do so for the rest of his life. He stated that he currently lives in the 3-storey house adjacent to the proposed development and advised members of the background history to the site and how he became the owner.

Mr Bellamy explained that the proposal started as an informal joint venture between his parents, Grace and Cyril Bellamy, and the Council in 2008, which culminated in planning permission being granted for 5 bungalows in 2009 and 2012. He added that his father’s health declined at this time and the momentum of the development ceased with both parties incurring time and money into the project at this stage.

Mr Bellamy stated that as there had been no other serious purchasers who came forward due to the site complications, his family decided to move matters forward by purchasing the land, buying an adjacent garden to increase the size and reignite the development for themselves. He added that this process began in 2015, but had numerous setbacks and obstacles to overcome in order to achieve the desired family homes and enable his sister to return to the village to assist with their parents’care.

Mr Bellamy stated that he wished to address the Planning Department’s concerns and recommendation of refusal with some points to defend and support his application, which has been provided in the further in-depth information and photographs documentation circulated to members prior to the meeting.  He referred to the Brewery Close street scene in the application where it shows the properties fronting on to the road, explaining that his existing dwelling is to the left hand side, which is a full 2 storied house with further rooms in the roof space, plot 4 is one and a half stories with the first floor rooms partially within the roof space and plot 3 is the same. He added that the final dwelling is the bungalow which fronts on to Ingham Hall Gardens, but has its side elevation on to Brewery Close, consistent with his proposal, and that as this street scene shows the transition between the 2 and a half story house to the single storied bungalow with the ridge and eaves heights stepping down gradually, his proposal provides a transition which can be seen throughout the village.

Mr Bellamy expressed the view that the dwellings have been designed not to overlook the neighbouring properties from habitable rooms, with the only situation where this is not the case was originally on plot 3, bedroom 4, so he has provided roof lights to this room ensuring views of the sky not of the neighbouring dwellings and the distance between plots 1 and 2 is one metre, not 0.7 metres as stated in the report, as the dashes shown on the roof plan are the brickwork line, therefore, enabling wheelie bins to be brought through and people can pass on it.  He stated that the wheelie bins will be brought to the front of the site on collection day and a slabbed area for them can be allocated between the fence on plot 3 and the public footpath, which can be conditioned.

Mr Bellamy expressed the view that the decision to come off Brewery Close was to reduce impact on Springfield Road, which is a tighter road and has predominantly retired occupants, and with regard to the 2 reasons for the recommendation of refusal he would argue that together with his agent he has worked closely with the Parish Council and the neighbouring dwellings, and has produced a transitional scheme that not only is consistent with Policy LP2 and LP16, it is supported by these. In his opinion this has created a bespoke solution for a restricted site for which he has provided a reduced number of dwellings than originally approved for the plot, consistent with National and Local policies. 

Mr Bellamy made the point that over the last 18 months, together with his architect, he has put in an enormous amount of time and effort in designing properties that complied with the Neighbourhood Plan, utilised the space efficiently and effectively, met his family requirements with a low maintenance amenity space for those at this time of life, has retained the original reinforced concrete roadway for environmental sustainability, and ensured his plans were supported by the surrounding residents and the Parish Council. He explained that he submitted this proposal in good faith to his desired specifications and requirements to enhance and compliment the surrounding area whilst maximising the sunlight to all plots.

Mr Bellamy explained that his preferred contact method with the Planning Department to discuss his proposal would have been verbally, but he was advised the procedure is to send in a pre-application, which resulted in a disappointing letter asking for ‘a complete redesign of the scheme’. He stated that he consulted with his neighbours on the limited options that were available and the overwhelming support was for the original 4 executive homes from the pre-planning application and any drastic alterations would have resulted in objections being raised locally with his neighbours and the Parish Council.

Mr Bellamy concluded by asking members to approve the proposal with the conditions they deem appropriate.

Members asked Mr Bellamy the following questions:

·         Councillor Lynn asked Mr Bellamy to clarify whether he is stating that he did not take advice from Planning Officers as part of the pre-application stage because the neighbours were not in support of the detail? Mr Bellamy stated that at the pre-application stage he was advised by officers to carry out a complete redesign of the proposal and when he consulted his neighbours to ascertain their views on the options, they were only satisfied with the proposed option. He added that one neighbour stated that they would object to the proposal if the house faced their property, another neighbour stated that they only wanted the executive style homes proposal. He explained that the estate is of an executive style, which is why it has been reduced from 5 smaller bungalows to 4 executive style dwellings.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the view that officers have highlighted the issues of overlooking and difficulties with parking as there are too many dwellings proposed for the space and he would have preferred to see 2 dwellings rather than 4 on the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she disagrees with Councillor Meekins and added that in the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraphs 117 and 118 it states: ‘to promote effective use of land, opportunities and benefits of the reuse of land’. She added that she thinks the committee could support the application for an executive style development, which has the support of the residents, and it should be approved to complete the site.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation is correct. She added that there is considerable overlooking into neighbouring properties along with several issues, including visibility and bins, and, in her opinion, the number of dwellings does not accord with the size and shape of the plot.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs Davis and referred to 1.6 of the executive summary, which highlights the proximity and overlooking issues. He added that he is against any form of development in such close proximity of dwellings already in existence and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that he has taken into consideration the resident’s letters of support and that many of them have referred to the proposal resolving the issue of flooding. He made the point that if you have purchased an executive home, there is the normal expectation that you would you want a garden, however, plots 1 and 2 have no amenity space, only a patio area at the front of the house, and plots 3 and 4 are also built close to the boundary, which does not feel the right development for the site. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that if the site was redesigned with one plot removed, there could be executive homes with executive gardens, and it would solve the problems and have the support of the residents. He added that he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she knows the area well and added that it does need developing and for the area to be finished off. She added that she does support the officer’s recommendation and agrees with the points made by the other members, making the point that it is a shame Mr Bellamy did not take into consideration the officers suggestions during the pre-application stage when they suggested that he should re-evaluate his proposal. She expressed the opinion that the proposal is over developed, the 2 houses dominate the site and the whole application needs to be looked at again.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that development on the plot is needed, but he does not agree with overlooking. He feels that the proposal site is too tight, and agrees with the officer’s conclusion that the proposal is over development.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the site is overdeveloped. He expressed the view that it is an awkward shaped plot, but it does need some form of development and he would encourage the applicant to come back with an amended scheme that has enough amenity space for the residents to be able to enjoy.

·         Councillor Connor endorsed the comments made by Councillor Cornwell.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation. 

(Councillor Sutton had left the meeting during the consideration of this application and took no further part in this item or the meeting)