Agenda item

Reversion of 4A and 4B The Crescent to a single dwelling including side/rear extension with parking. 

Public Participation

Ros Liddington spoke in objection to the application

Timothy Pennell spoke in objection to the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer Tim Pizzey, presented the application which was for reversion of 4A and 4B The Crescent, to a single dwelling including side/rear extension with parking. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report.

 

Late correspondence was circulated at the meeting, which included a report clarification and photos provided by a third party.

 

It was explained that the site had a reasonable amount of planning history as detailed in the report.

 

The proposal was to revert two flats back into one dwelling, with an extension. The original application had included a car port; however this had since been removed, and now substituted with two car parking spaces.

 

There was a bank along the boundary with a row of trees, and around the extension it was proposed that there would be a retaining wall.

 

There would be one single entrance door to the front, with the extension on the side of the dwelling. There was already accommodation in the roof.

 

The previous scheme that was dismissed on appeal included a larger extension, with a path close  to the boundary,  and involved an additional of a flat, with the rear extension deeper and wider than was now proposed. That scheme was dismissed on appeal on the grounds of impact on the conservation area.

 

On the rear of the property, there was currently a flat roofed extension which would be retained and incorporated into the proposed extension.

 

The proposal included removing some more of the bank to make way for the side extension, with some trees identified in the arboricultural report to be felled, some to be pruned  back and some new planting.

 

There was reference in the most recent appeal decision of the importance of the trees. There were no TPO’s on the trees but they had been identified as contributing to the conservation area.

 

The appeal decisions are a material planning consideration; the main consideration was the impact on the conservation area.

 

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that there was a condition which required the details of the tree species proposed for re-planting. The Officers would work with the Tree Officer to seek clarification on what types of trees would be required. The following points came out of that questioning:

 

• The whole area was of archaeological interest, due to the potential for Palaeolithic remains, known to be in the area.

 

• The Arboriculture report would cover aspects of avoiding nesting season during construction.

 

• If this application was approved, the applicant would be able to submit further applications to increase the development. All applications are considered on their own merits, however unless something materially changed it was likely to have same decision.

 

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

 

The main points raised included:

 

• the alleged damage caused by previous removal of some trees, and the subsequent negative effect on the remaining sycamore trees following the removal of part of the bank the concern that the removal of the proposed trees and bank would result in the removal of the natural screening between the Girls School and these houses.

 

• The digger used previously had allegedly  damaged a piece of archaeology.

 

• Areas of the scheme had insufficient information for the Committee to consider at this point.

 

• The Salisbury City Council had rejected this application, since that time there had been 3 rapid plan revisions.

 

• Concerns of multiple occupation and associated vehicle movements. The movement of construction vehicles and the times of work.

 

The Division Member Cllr Sven Hocking then spoke in objection to the application, noting that :

 

• the current application was pretty close to the previous proposal. It was already cramped at the top of the road and would become more so and the level of upheaval to local residents due to there being no room for construction vehicles to turn.

 

• There would be a change of character to the area and the proposal for tree planting would be difficult as there would be little bank left to do any planting on.

 

• There had been a long history of applications on this site, all centred around getting another building on the end of the terrace.

 

• There was a covenant in place which was a legal document to restrict any more building on the site.

 

Cllr Sven Hocking then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation on the grounds of overdevelopment, parking

impact on neighbours and impact on a conservation area. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Cllr Hocking also requested that the Conservation Officer attend the site to advise on the re-instatement of the trees.

 

A debate followed where the key points raised included that the proposed development was in a conservation area, and Members raised the following issues:

 

• The associated vehicle movements in the restricted lane would be a disruption to the other residents.

 

• The trees, once damaged could not be repaired.

 

• The covenant was irrelevant, and not a planning consideration, as it was a civil matter.

 

• The upheaval would be a temporary matter, and the vehicular movement of works vehicles could be addressed by restrictions on hours.

 

• The trees had some protection by virtue of being in a conservation area. The applicant could apply to remove trees for development.

 

• If approved, the submitted scheme identified works to remove some trees and in effect an approval of this scheme would be granting permission for those trees to be removed. The bank has no separate protection status.

 

• Condition 11 gave protection against the dwelling becoming a multiple occupancy. The property as one dwelling was considered to be of an adequate size for a large family, without an extension.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Refusal.

 

Resolved:

That application 18/03678/FUL be refused, against Officer’s recommendation, for the following reason:

 

1.     The proposed development by virtue of the size and cramped siting of the proposed extensions and retaining wall and the resultant adverse impact on the bank and trees of importance along the eastern site boundary, would be harmful to the character and appearance of this attractive part of the Milford Hill Conservation Area. Furthermore, notwithstanding the changes made to the previous proposal, it is considered that the proposed development would not adequately overcome the Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the most recent appeal in respect of application 16/01910/FUL (APP/Y3940/W/17/3174421).The proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Policies 57 and 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and aims of the NPPF.

 

2.     The proposed development, by reason of its location at the top of a narrow private driveway, with limited parking for motorised vehicles and servicing, would provide insufficient parking and turning space for future occupiers and visitors of the site,  likely to result in obstruction and inconvenience for users of the narrow congested private road leading to the site and associated disruption and disturbance during construction. As such the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and would be contrary to Core Policy 57 and 64 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

 

 

Note: The Committee also requested immediate remedial action be taken to reinstate the bank and trees that has been removed without permission. The Planning Officer would liaise with the Enforcement Officer to progress this request.