Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of 4No. dwellings, alteration to parking layout and formation of new access.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 22/03341/FUL for the erection of 4No. dwellings, alteration to parking layout and formation of new access at Land Rear of Council Offices, Churchfields, High Street, Wincanton be REFUSED permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reason:

01.            The overdevelopment of the site will lead to a lack of car parking contrary to Policy TA5 and TA6 of the Local Plan.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour of refusal)

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation highlighted key elements of the proposal including:

·       The extent of the Conservation Area and location of listed buildings – noting no neighbouring listed buildings.

·       Elevation and floor levels – been lowered slightly to reduce impact on immediate neighbours.

·       Number of parking spaces proposed.

·       New access for some parking spaces.

·       Key considerations:

o   Parking / highways – parking provision falls below recommended requirement.

o   Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area

o   Neighbour impact – as raised by Town Council and neighbour objections.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the agenda report.

A member of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application. Some of his comments included:

·       his property was nearest to the proposed development however the officer had not made any reference to this but had to other properties further away.

·       There is a very old boundary wall bordering the site.

·       Reference to the number of parking spaces being less than policy – felt this not been properly taken into account. Parking already bad in Wincanton.

·       A site visit is needed to comprehend the proximity issues.

A representative for Wincanton Town Council addressed members and noted they had been very supportive of the original application for conversion of the office building to flats. However, this application felt like trying to squeeze in and insufficient consideration has been given to access and parking.  He also referred to a significant mature tree that had been lost on the site due to excavations around it.

The agent then addressed the committee and some of his points included:

·       No objections from statutory consultees.

·       A large portion of the site was currently hard surface and this proposal provided an opportunity for landscaping and soft vegetation.

·       No objection from Highways about parking, Policy allowed for a reduction in the optimum level of parking within a sustainable location.

·       There would be local benefits including construction jobs, residents supporting local businesses and provision of new homes.

·       Proposal would deliver high quality and much needed housing in a sustainable location.

The Planning Officer responded to comments raised by the public speakers and points of detail raised by members, including:

·       Whilst an objectors dwelling was nearer to the site there was a degree of separation and no overlooking, whereas it was felt there was possibly more impact on other nearby dwellings as referred to in the agenda report.

·       Further detail regarding loss of the mature tree.

·       Acknowledgement that part of the application was retrospective and that the Planning Authority were unable to take any enforcement action until this current application had been determined.

·       Further detail regarding the economic impact element.

·       Clarity regarding wording in the NPPF.

·       Acknowledgement of concerns about parking and that the parking provision proposed was less than policy requirements but Highways had not raised any objection.

·       The parking to be provided in this application was for private parking only.

·       The optimum parking requirement for this application would be 9 spaces.

·       A condition was required for one EV charging point per dwelling.

·       The parking spaces proposed for this application were not allocated to a specific property, but this could be conditioned if wished.

·       Clarity regarding the change of parking provision relating to the original application for conversion to flats.

During debate several members expressed some concern about the application, including:

·       Parking near the site was already limited.

·       Parking could be a nightmare if get this wrong.

·       If approved this would affect the provision of parking for the flats.

·       Very concerned about the parking provisions – cannot see how parking will be adequate.

·       Feels like overdevelopment of the site.

·       To say adequate on-street parking nearby was not acceptable.

·       No visitor parking proposed and would be a very low number of spaces to be provided between dwellings and flats.

Councill Henry Hobhouse proposed refusal of the application due to lack of adequate parking. During a short discussion Councillor Tim Kerley seconded the proposal but suggested if could add in about possible harm to the Conservation Area and the public benefit being diminished by creating additional parking issues.

The Chair adjourned the meeting for a few minutes in order that the proposer and seconder could formulate wording for the reason for refusal with planning officers and the Specialist (Legal).

On reconvening the meeting the Chair advised that the proposer and seconder had agreed to amend the wording of the reason slightly to the overdevelopment of the site would lead to a lack of car parking contrary to Policy TA5 and TA6 of the Local Plan. On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 22/03341/FUL for the erection of 4No. dwellings, alteration to parking layout and formation of new access at Land Rear of Council Offices, Churchfields, High Street, Wincanton be REFUSED permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reason:

01.            The overdevelopment of the site will lead to a lack of car parking contrary to Policy TA5 and TA6 of the Local Plan.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour of refusal)