Agenda item

Proposed redevelopment of the existing Old Southbroom School Buildings to provide 6 new residential dwellings comprising 1  Studio; 4 two bedroom flats; and 1 two bedroom town house, with associated external works, to include conversion of the existing redundant WC block into bike and bin storage (Resubmission of 17/09283/FUL).

Public Participation:

Mrs Elizabeth Denbury, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Darren Saunders, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Darren Saunders had also submitted formal questions to the Committee. These were answered by the Chairman. The questions and responses can be seen in  supplement 2. There were no supplementary questions asked.

Mr Lawrence Nash, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Peter Kent, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The majority of objections raised concerned the number of parking spaces proposed as part of the application. It was stated that there were serious parking pressures in the local area and that if approved the application would seriously exacerbate this situation, due to the under-provision of parking in connection with the scheme.

Jonathan James, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the proposed redevelopment of the existing Old Southbroom School Buildings to provide 6 new residential dwellings comprising 1 Studio; 4 two bedroom flats; and 1 two bedroom town house, with associated external works, to include conversion of the existing redundant WC block into bike and bin storage (Resubmission of 17/09283/FUL).

Key details were stated to include the following:

The existing buildings on the site are Grade II listed, therefore a counterpart listed building application was submitted, which was undetermined. The application was a resubmission of 17/09283/FUL, which was withdrawn due to concerns about the number of units proposed. The number of units had been reduced from 7 to 6 in the revised application. It was proposed that each unit would have 1 parking space, so there would be 6 parking spaces in total.

The key details regarding the application were stated to include the impact on highway safety, car parking provision and heritage impacts. The total number of parking spaces to be provided did not meet with parking standards, however as the site was not a new build, but rather a change of use of a listed building, a relaxation in parking standards was deemed acceptable. In the proposed scheme, some of the parked cars would need to reverse out of the site which was not considered ideal. However it was stated that cars currently using the site were doing this already, so there would be no change in that regard. The public benefits of the proposal, in securing the future of the historic buildings, were deemed to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the heritage asset as a consequence of the change of use to residential. The re-development of the site would also provide an important contribution to housing stock in the local area.

Attention was drawn to a new plan which had been submitted by the applicant, which was summarised by the officer. The new plan illustrated how an extra parking space could be provided, taking the overall number of spaces to 7. However, as the agent did not wish it to form part of the application, it could not be considered.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Sue Evans, spoke in objection to the application.

In response to public statements the officer stated that this was a conversion, rather than a new build, as such, statements that parking requirements were half those required were not correct.

A debate followed, whereby the key issues raised included; the reversing of cars onto the road causing safety issues. Some members felt this could not be considered as a major issue as it was already happening on the site. It was felt that the principle of the proposal was sound, as it would increase housing stock and ensure survival of the listed building. However parking was of great concern to all members of the Committee as there were already parking problems locally and there were not many spaces being provided in the proposed scheme. It was felt that there was room within the site to provide more parking. There was also concerned raised regarding drainage as there did not appear to be a storm sewer.

In response to the debate the planning officer stated that there was existing storm water drainage on the site.

Councillor Mark Connolly proposed a motion to refuse planning permission, against officer recommendation, as the provision of parking was not deemed to be sufficient in a location where there were already parking pressures. The application was therefore felt to be contrary to Core Policy 64 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015) and to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This motion was seconded by Councillor Peter Evans.

Further debate followed, where some members reiterated their concerns regarding the parking issues and felt that there was definitely room within the site to increase parking provision. It was hoped that if the motion to refuse was passed then the applicant would reapply with revised plans showing a higher level of parking provision on the site.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development of six residential units with only six parking spaces makes inadequate provision for residents parking to enable the development to be accepted at this location where there is already parking pressure on nearby public roads. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Policy 64 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015) and to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.