Agenda item

Erection of 19 affordable dwellings, creation of access, landscaping, parking and associated works.

Public Participation

Russ Champ spoke in objection to the application

Adam Pitt spoke in objection to the application

Nikki Cook spoke in objection to the application

Adam Bennett (Agent) spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer Georgina Wright presented the application for the erection of 19 affordable dwellings, creation of access, landscaping, parking and associated works on land at Ringwood Avenue, Amesbury. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions, as set out in the report.

 

The Officer advised that Amesbury Town Council now supported the application.

 

The scheme proposals included mixed units on the site, with the main vehicular access via Ringwood Road. 

 

Previous planning history was also detailed on page 31 of the report, however the last decision pre-dated the Core Strategy and Planning Policy Framework guidance. Page 32 provided the previous reasons for refusal.  Members have to assess whether previous reason for refusal has been addressed.

 

Officers recommend that it has.  The proposed number of units had reduced from 20 to 19.  Large areas of hard standing has been reduced, and parking spaces now generally inbetween the properties they serve. Bungalows proposed in the western part of the site. 10 metre back gardens are identified

 

S106 funds would be secured from this development. There was a mixture of semi and detached properties, in brick and render.

 

The Committee was then able to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that there was no density threshold set out in policy but 20 dwellings (38 dwellings per hectare) had previously been accepted by the last inspector on this site. The garages at the entrance to the site were part owned by the applicant and part were in private ownership. The applicant had confirmed that they could secure a pedestrian link through the garage blocks, despite not having control over all of them.

 

The housing estate was former MoD land which had been sold off. Policy required 6 units to be affordable housing, the proposals were for all 19 units to be affordable housing.

 

If the application was approved and the applicant later came back to request a reduction in affordable housing units on the site, the application would be assessed on its own merits at that time. But the current scheme is for 100% affordable units and this would be secured by the subsequent S106.

 

The width of the vehicular access was marginally narrower than had originally been requested by Highways, however the proposal had been accepted by Highways (requested 7m width and accepted 6.5m width). It is also the same as was accepted by the inspector previoulsy

 

Each of the properties surrounding the perimeter of the site, had a back gate into the field. But the field is privately owned. Village green status had been applied for in the past, this had not been successful. The site was not Council owned, and not in the Open Space Strategy, therefore must be considered as a private site.

 

The residents had been using the land, however there was no obligation to maintain that use.

 

Members of the Public were then given the opportunity to present their views as indicated above.

 

Some main points raised included that one of the garage owners stated he had deeds from 1990 showing that access via the garages was restricted to garage owners and the utility provider only.

 

It was reported that the centre of the field regularly turned into a bog, which it was suggested was due to a failing sewage system underground.

 

The Ecological survey was questioned as being out of date, as it did not reflect the vast amount of wildlife said to be living in the vicinity.

 

If the development went ahead, the rear access to the existing surrounding properties would be restricted.

 

Access to the site would not accommodate two vehicles passing without one mounting the pavement, thus impacting on pedestrian safety.

 

The Agent confirmed that the Town Council was now supportive of the proposal. There had been no other objections from statutory consultees.

 

The scheme had been subject to a number of changes since the previous application, with many of the concerns previously raised, now resolved by the applicant.

 

There was no lawful use or right for local residents to use the land as a public amenity space.

 

The Division Member Cllr Robert Yuill then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the proposed development of the land into housing had been going on for quite some time.

 

Cllr Yuill supported the local residents who did not feel the land should be developed, noting that each of the houses around the boundary to the site had been designed with a gate to access the open space.

 

The proposed design consisted of a several brick dwellings, rather than render, whereas all of the existing houses in the surrounding area were of render, which he felt was a unique design.

 

He noted that the garage blocks were not all owned by local residents. Moving the access point, as previously requested by the Police had resulted in a significantly narrower entrance, of 4.5m which would cause conflict.

The footpath was 1.8m wide and had the potential to be overrun by vehicles.

 

There would also be conflict with people coming in and out of the garages as there was a tight bend with limited visibility. The proposed access was not suitable.

 

Deeds of a garage owner showed that access was only permissible by the garage owners and for the electricity provider to access the substation at the end, yet it was stated that the owner had access rights, so this was a conflict.

 

The long grass on the site was hiding wildlife and ecology, not detailed in the report.

 

Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, citing CP57, on the grounds of design, layout and local amenity, and in addition the appearance of the actual buildings. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Cllr Westmoreland noted that development of the site had been fought over since 2001 and that there had been a previous application for 20 dwellings. He felt that affordable houses should be built to a standard of any housing on the open market and members should consider it as they would market housing. Only one building had been removed from the original number. The plot was not suited to the proposed number of dwellings. 

 

A debate followed where the key points raised included that it was likely the land would be built on at some point, however access and number of dwellings would need to be considered, with consideration of the correct provision of a path for wheelchair users.

 

There was a lack of rental properties and this scheme was inside an existing housing estate, so the design was irrelevant as contained, and not visible outside of the development.

 

The level of affordable housing was good, however the number of dwellings on this site was still high. There were aspects of this site which were sub-standard.

 

Would Highways have objected if this had been a market development rather than an affordable housing scheme?

 

The elderly accessible units had been put at the bottom of the hill, to the back of the development. The access and sightlines presented issues with restrictions on visibility.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal against Officer recommendations.

 

Resolved:

That application 19/04863/FUL be refused for the reasons;

 

1.     The development by reason of its design, layout, appearance and density is considered to be a cramped form of development that is out of keeping with surrounding properties and results in an overdevelopment of the site thereby detracting from the visual amenities of properties in Lyndhurst Road. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Wiltshire Core Strategy CP57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping)

 

2.     The proposed development fails to make provision for contributions towards off site public open space provision; primary and secondary school improvements; and waste management across the site, or to secure all of the proposed dwellings as affordable rented tenure. It is therefore considered that the proposals are contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP3 (Infrastructure Requirements), CP43 (Providing Affordable Housing) and CP45 (Meeting Wiltshire's Housing Needs); Saved Salisbury District Local Plan policy R2 (Recreational Open Space); and the Council's Waste Storage and Collection: Guidance for Developers Supplementary Planning Document