1 & 2 Brooklyn Cottages, Portsmouth Road, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31 8EP

Transcription

1 BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE & HOUND Thursday 02 February 2006 Case Officer Rachel Illsley SITE: & 2 Brooklyn Cottages, Portsmouth Road, Bursledon, Southampton, SO3 8EP Ref. F/05/55659 Received: 24//2005 (23/0/2006) APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Mr G Manns Construction of 3 storey block comprising 2no. shop/commercial units, 6no. bed flats & 2no. 2 bed flats (amended scheme) AMENDMENTS: None RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION CONDITIONS AND REASONS: () Based on the information provided, the plans fail to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an overdevelopment of the site, and the introduction of a visually intrusive, unduly prominent and overbearing built form, which would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene, by reason of the siting, massing, layout and design of the proposed building. Therefore, the proposals are considered contrary to the guidance contained in PPS: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPG: Housing, Policy UB3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review, 25.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 997 and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (200-20) Second Deposit: Post Inquiry Modifications. (2) The proposed development fails to provide satisfactory cycle and refuse storage to serve the new flats and retail units and as such, is considered contrary to the guidance contained in Policy 25.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 997 and Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (200-20) Second Deposit: Post Inquiry Modifications.

2 Report: This application has been referred to Committee because is considered to be contentious and following a request from Councillors Holes, Millar and Craig. DESCRIPTION. This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing properties, and the erection of a three-storey replacement building, containing two commercial units and eight one-bed flats. The residential accommodation would be split over three floors, with two flats at ground floor, to the rear of the new commercial units, four flats on the first floor, and a further two flats within the roof space. Parking provision would be made to the rear of the site, accessed via a covered drive, leading under part of the first floor of the building. 2. No s & 2 Brooklyn Cottages are currently two-storey properties, which were previously semi-detached houses which have now been converted into mixeduse premises. The ground floor is occupied by Manns Estate Agents and there are two 3-bed flats above the retail premises. The rear of the site is used for car parking, with vehicular access along the western boundary of the site. PLANNING HISTORY 3. Application F/05/53334 was submitted in June 2005, seeking permission for the erection of a three-storey block containing 2 commercial units and ten onebed flats, with associated parking to the rear, following the demolition of the existing buildings. This application was withdrawn in September This current application is a resubmission, seeking to address and overcome officer concerns relating to the earlier application. CONSULTATION RESPONSES 5. The Head of Planning Policy, whilst supportive of the principle of redeveloping the site for a mixed retail/residential scheme, has raised a holding objection, stating: 6. The revised proposals are considered to be an improvement but the ground floor eastern elevation would benefit from some further attention. Planting proposals need to be provided, and details of the forecourt. Proposed quality and quantity of amenity space at rear still looks inadequate. 7. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection to the proposed parking provision, but has expressed concern regarding the cycle and refuse storage, stating: 8. Cycle storage should be able to accommodate 0 cycles in this respect, the proposed store is unsatisfactory, being too shallow with the access in this location. It will need to be at least another m deep. For security, this should

3 not be combined with refuse storage. One short stay cycle hoop for the commercial units should be provided. 9. Refuse storage for residential should cater for 4 eurobins, plus commercial waste storage is required. It is not evident what facilities are being provided. The refuse bin area shown will just about accommodate one eurobin each. 0. Amended plans are also required detailing the exact dimensions of the build over driveway, with clear elevations. Access to the rear of the development by service vehicles may be restricted if the access is too narrow and low.. Contributions required towards road traffic reduction measures and details of the relocation of the electricity pole is required. 2. The Head of Direct Services has also expressed concern regarding refuse storage, stating: The bin store will need to be large enough to house 2 x 280 litre eurobins, and be sited within 0 metres of the highway over a flat, level surface. There will need to be separate storage for commercial waste. 3. Bursledon Parish Council has objected to the proposals, on the following grounds: Three storey design is out of keeping with the streetscene and the mass of the building is too dominant; Inadequate bin storage; Unacceptable increase in traffic movements in already congested area; Use of back track, even if legal, would lead to loss of trees on boundary, prevent use of parking spaces and is wholly unacceptable for the level of traffic movement; Inadequate parking for two shops; and Overlooking and loss of amenity to neighbours, especially Sarum. 4. Southern Water has stated it has no adverse comment on this application. 5. The Head of Housing Services has raised no objection to the principle, but has made the following comments: The provision for rapid ventilation to the lounge/kitchen in flats G, G2, F to F4, and the bedroom in F3 is unacceptable, as the sole form of ventilation is via a sliding door which does not provide a secure and adequately controllable form of rapid ventilation. 6. The Head of Environmental Health has made the following comments: Any intensification of residential use adjoining the Lowford Balti Takeaway will suffer from loss of amenity and possibly nuisance odour from the unregulated take away. The internal layout will not make a significant difference to odour impact.

4 7. To date, letters of representation have been received, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds: three-storey building would be out of character and visually dominant, with poor external design impact of additional traffic, adding to existing congestion is there a need for additional retail units? Adverse impact on wildlife Impact of use of access track to rear, query re rights of access and loss of trees along boundary Insufficient car parking provision Concerns re highway safety Overdevelopment of the site Loss of privacy, overlooking and loss of light Impact on foundations and drainage of existing properties Access for refuse collection CONSIDERATIONS Principle of Development 8. The application site lies within the urban edge, as defined in both the adopted and review local plans, and also lies within the Bursledon Village Shopping Centre. 9. As noted above, the site as existing contains a retail unit across the ground floor frontage, and two residential units above. The proposed redevelopment maintains this mixed use, and seeks to provide an additional retail unit and six additional residential units. 20. Policy 4.T of the Review Local Plan encourages the use of upper floors of premises within shopping areas for purposes such as residential accommodation, subject to such proposals ensuring that the amenity of the upper floor use would not be adversely affected by the ground floor use, and that the scheme makes adequate provision for the disposal, storage and collection of waste. 2. Policy 95.H of the Adopted Local Plan states that residential development and redevelopment will be permitted within the urban edge, subject to compliance with the other policies of the plan. Policy 27.BE of the Adopted Local Plan states that in order to assist regeneration in urban areas, planning permission will be granted for appropriate development which achieves, amongst other criteria, the recycling of derelict, outworn or underused land or buildings. 22. As the proposed scheme retains and adds to the retail floorspace within the designated Village Shopping Centre, and seeks to provide additional residential accommodation within the urban edge, the principle of the scheme is considered acceptable.

5 23. Government guidance outlined in PPG3, relating to new residential development, promotes densities of between dwellings per hectare, in order to secure a more efficient use of land in providing new homes. The principle of redeveloping the site to provide additional residential units at a higher density is therefore acceptable, but consideration needs to be given to the ability of the site to accommodate the density proposed and the quality of the resulting built environment, and its relationship to and impact on the surrounding area. Siting, Design & Layout 24. The proposed redevelopment would result in the erection of a single threestorey block, with the second floor accommodation contained within the roof space. 25. The new building would be sited further forward towards the frontage of the site than the existing building, and would be approximately 2 metres from the front boundary at its eastern corner, and approximately 3.4 metres back at the western corner. The front elevation of the proposed building has a staggered building line, providing the main shop frontage to the retail units, and then stepping back to form the covered access way leading to the rear of the site. 26. Overall, the building would measure approximately 3.6 metres in width, at its widest point, approximately 8 metres in depth, and would effectively fill the width of the plot. There is some discrepancy on the plans submitted regarding the exact dimensions of the building, and its siting in relation to the boundaries, and clarification and amended plans have been requested from the applicant. 27. Government guidance outlined in PPS: Delivering Sustainable Development, places increased emphasis on promoting high quality design and states that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. This builds on guidance contained within PPG3, which states that new housing and residential environments should be well designed, and that Local Planning Authorities should reject poor design, particularly when the decisions are supported by clear plan policies. 28. Policy UB3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan states that development should be appropriate in design, scale, layout and density to its surroundings and contribute to the quality of the built environment. This guidance is carried forward in Policies 25.BE and 59.BE of the Adopted and Review local plans, which require new development to be in sympathy with the appearance and character of the local area, and to take full and proper account of the context of the site, and to be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, density and design. 29. The new building would contain three storeys of accommodation, and would measure approximately 9.2 metres in height. The character of the surrounding

6 streetscene is predominantly two-storey, although there is a mix in terms of the siting, design and style of neighbouring properties. 30. The neighbouring property to the east, Sarum, is a detached two-storey property, but is set back a considerable distance from the frontage and at a higher ground level than Brooklyn Cottages. In contrast, the neighbouring building to the west is a single storey unit, currently in use as a take away, which in turn is next to a two-storey terraced row of units. 3. In being sited further forwards and increasing in height in comparison to the existing buildings, the proposed building would be a significant presence within the streetscene, and I am concerned regarding the overall scale and bulk of the proposals. 32. As stated above, the building would effectively fill the width of the plot, and this needs to be considered in terms of the resulting relationship with neighbouring properties. A detailed streetscene has been requested from the applicants, to show the proposed building in context with the existing neighbouring properties, as well as a detailed cross-section running from the front to the rear of the site, illustrating the changes in levels, but these plans are yet to be received. 33. The Head of Planning Policy, as outlined above, has raised a holding objection to the scheme, pending the satisfactory resolution of a number of detailed points, relating to the design and layout. The issues of landscaping and surfacing treatment of the proposed forecourt could be addressed via condition, if consent were to be granted. 34. However, the concerns regarding the detailed treatment of the elevations of the building, and the quality/quantity of amenity space, as detailed below have yet to be resolved, and need to be considered in relation to the ability of the site to accommodate the level of development proposed. Amenity Space Provision 35. Issues such as the provision of amenity space and the impact to neighbouring properties also need to be considered, in relation to the scale and design of the building, and the density of the development proposed. 36. The Council s SPG relating to residential amenity states that as a guide, a minimum of 25 square metres of amenity space per unit should be provided, and that this space should be suitable for normal domestic activities, such as sitting out and drying clothes. Based on this guidance, the requirement for 8 flats would be 200 square metres. 37. The amenity space provision is shown as being at the rear of the building, and equates to approximately 26 square metres, which is below the required level of provision. Again, as noted above, the Head of Planning Policy has raised a holding objection to the proposals, stating amongst other criteria that the quality and quantity of the amenity space appears inadequate.

7 38. However, a balance needs to be established between supporting the principle of higher density developments, in sustainable locations such as this, with access to a range of local services, and the provision of the full amenity space requirement outlined in the amenity standards. Therefore, should the applicants be able to demonstrate on any amended plans that the amenity space provided was of a high quality, with good landscaping and offered residents a useable and private area, it may be appropriate to accept a lower level of provision in this instance. 39. The four first floor flats are shown as having small projecting balconies, which help to supplement the communal amenity space provision. However, I am concerned that the two balconies at the rear of the building would result in considerable opportunity for overlooking to the rear garden of the neighbouring property, Sarum, due to the siting of the two buildings and also the changes in ground level that means that the land rises towards the rear of the site. The balconies could therefore result in a loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of the neighbouring house, and an objection has been received on these grounds. 40. A detailed cross-section has therefore been requested from the applicants, showing the changes in levels and the position of these balconies in relation to the neighbouring property, but this information has not been received to date. 4. With regards to the balconies on the front elevation, as these would overhang the forecourt area to the front of the retail units and be adjacent to the highway, I do not consider that these balconies would provide viable, useable amenity space, and are perhaps more decorative in their function, and add an element of visual interest to the front elevation of the building. 42. In addition, no detail has been provided to show how the proposed amenity space to the rear of the building would be protected from noise and disturbance from the access road, and also what the relationship would be between the proposed sitting out areas specifically for the ground floor units, and the remaining communal area. Again, clarification of these issues has been requested from the applicants. Cycle & Refuse Storage 43. As noted above, both the Heads of Engineering and Direct Services have raised objections to the scheme, based on the lack of satisfactory provision for cycle and refuse storage. 44. Policy 25.BE and 59.BE of the Adopted and Review Local Plans require proposals to include provision for the secure storage of bicycles and to make adequate provision for the storage and collection of refuse. 45. The plans indicate a cycle storage facility positioned adjacent to the amenity space, but this is considered to be of an insufficient size to provide the 0 cycle spaces required to serve the level of accommodation proposed. In

8 addition, no short stay provision is indicated to serve the retail units the Head of Engineering has indicated that short stay hoop per unit is required. 46. With regards to refuse storage, the only provision shown on the plans are two cupboard-type areas adjacent to the access road, but it is not clear from the drawings whether these areas are intended to serve the flats, the retail units or indeed, both. In any event, the level of provision is considered unacceptable. To serve the flats, a storage area capable of accommodating 2 x 280 litre euro-bins is required, with separate provision being made for the retail units. 47. The Head of Direct Services has also specified that the refuse storage needs to be within 0 metres of the highway, and accessible over a flat, level surface. 48. These requirements raise further questions about the layout of the proposed development and also the level of development proposed. In order to provide satisfactory cycle storage, the size of the proposed structure needs to be increased, which may reduces the level of amenity space available, which is already considered to be undersized. 49. In addition, the refuse storage also needs to be made larger and placed in an accessible location this may require the design of the building itself to be revisited, to enable access to the rear of the site, or a separate structure to be placed within the 0m zone required by Direct Services. 50. A reduction in the number of residential units proposed would help to address both these concerns the overall area of amenity space required would reduce, helping to redress the existing deficit in provision, and the size of the areas required for both bin and cycle storage would also be reduced. 5. Again, the applicant has been made aware of these concerns and amended plans have been requested to address these points. Access & Parking 52. The scheme proposes a total of parking spaces, positioned in the rear half of the site, similar to the existing site layout. There is no distinction on the plans between parking for the residential and retail units. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection to the level of parking provision proposed. 53. However, a query has been raised regarding use of the access track that abuts the rear eastern corner of the site, leading towards Rutland Gardens. This track is an unmade road, and provides access to neighbouring properties. There is a distinct change in levels between this rear corner of the site and the access track, and there are a number of small trees along this boundary. 54. The site layout appears to suggest an access gate in this corner, which is not there at present, and a number of residents have objected to the scheme on the grounds of increased use of this track. Clarification has therefore been requested as to the intentions relating to this corner of the site, confirmation of whether the applicants have rights of way across this land and also an

9 explanation of what would happen to the parking provision, if this access is included. Contributions 55. In accordance with the guidance contained in Circular 05/05, and the policy guidance outlined in Policies 48.OS and 65.IN of the adopted local plan, and Policies 0.T, 47.OS and 9.IN of the review local plan, the application is subject to the provision of developers contributions to go towards social and transportation infrastructure in the local area. Although the scheme would result in eight residential units, these contributions are required only in respect of the net additional six units. 56. The applicants have indicated that they are prepared to make the required contributions via a unilateral undertaking, and a satisfactory signed agreement has now been received in respect of the application. CONCLUSION 57. Written confirmation has been received from the applicants that all the planning issues, concerns and objections will be addressed, but to date, no indication has been given as to how this will be achieved and no amended plans have been received. 58. I am therefore of the opinion that the application, based on the information submitted, fails to demonstrate that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site without resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. The plans do not show that the proposed building would have a satisfactory relationship to the streetscene and character of the area, in terms of bulk, massing and design, and do not address concerns relating to the potential impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and loss of amenity. 59. Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated that the proposed scheme results in an acceptable provision of amenity space, or satisfactory provision for secure and accessible cycle and bin storage to serve both the residential and retail units. 60. As such, the application has not demonstrated that the site is capable of satisfactorily accommodating the level of development proposed and complying with the aims and requirements of PPS, PPG3 and relevant development plan policy. In light of these concerns, it is recommended that planning permission be refused, on the grounds outlined in the agenda.

10 Salkem 2a 45 Bramleys RUTLAND GARDENS Springfield Sheridan Lowford Cedar House Springhill Westwood Fair View Crimond Byways Birch Hill Rutland House Valley Ridge Brooklyn Cottages Lowford Amberwood Sarum Mount Merton Foxcotte 2 2 Pembroke Cotts Preston Cotts 2 Rutla Gard 2 Throfare LB PO PORTSMOUTH ROAD m TCB Garage Cott Jasmine Dell Cott Lowford House Meadowview Meadow View 2 Harbour Cottage Lilac Cott Linden Cottage El Sub Sta Thatched Cottage Glencoe Cottage Glen Glea SPRING GROVE 32 Laurel House Bursledon Congregational Church Brook Cottage 2 20.m THE GROVE Idaho Spring House Yew Tree Rose Scale :000 Map Ref SU480SW Date 24/0/2006 Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence No (2006)