Development Control Committee 11 February, 2016 WD/D/15/002192 ITEM NUMBER 09 Application Number: WD/D/15/002192 Variation of condition Registration Date: 1 September, 2015 Application Site: TILIA HOUSE, 8 QUEENS AVENUE, DORCHESTER, DT1 2EW Proposal: Variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/15/000382 - to allow minor changes to elevations & retention of rear boundary fence Applicant: PB Edwards Construction Ltd Ward Members: Cllr T Jones, Cllr G Duke Case Officer: Kirstie Henshaw 1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve with Conditions 2. Description of development 2.1 The applicant is seeking planning permission for the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission WD/D/15/000382 which granted the conversion of the building to 6 flats. The proposals relate to revisions to the approved scheme at 8 Queens Avenue, Dorchester. 2.2 The application site is located on the northern side of Queens Avenue which is an impressive avenue with Lime trees, the early plots were of generous size with grand houses and number 8 is very much part of this grand plan and indeed is one of the largest and perhaps most impressive buildings on the avenue. The site is also situated within the Dorchester Conservation Area which was extended to take in Queens Avenue and the listed pier gates at the entrance into The Avenue. 2.3 The application property is a substantial three storey building that was almost certainly built between 1890 and 1903. The property sits within a substantial plot with the rear boundary extending further to the north than northern boundaries of the two neighbouring properties. 2.4 During the course of the application the submitted plans were amended to omit the proposed rear dormers.
3. Main planning issues Impact upon visual amenity with respect to the scale and positioning of development, design and materials Impact on character of conservation area Impact upon residential amenity Parking, access and highway safety 4. Statutory Consultations Parish/Town Council 4.1 Object to the proposal 4.2 The Committee noted the representations made by residents adjoining the site. The Committee did not support the variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/15/000382 relating to the change to the boundary treatment to the rear of the site. It was considered that there were no reasonable grounds not to build a 1.8m rear boundary wall and this wall (and additional coniferous planting) would protect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours to this boundary. In the Design and Access Statement submitted in support WD/D/15/000382, paragraph 7. Consultation states: the brick wall proposed to the rear and the type of coniferous planting has generally well received. There did not appear to be any substantial evidence to support changing the rear boundary treatment which was what the developer had consulted on and what neighbours had accepted, supported and now expected. The wall was seen to be a key element of the development. 4.3 The Committee did not support the variation of condition 1 of planning approval WD/D/15/000382 relating to the addition of two further dormer windows in the roof of the north elevation. It was considered that these would have the effect of making the building overbearing to the neighbours to the rear of the site and would also cause overlooking and loss of privacy to these neighbours. However, if this variation was to be approved, the Committee considered that the installation of roof light/velux windows would have a less harmful effect on the rear neighbours. In the Design and Access Statement submitted in support WD/D/15/000382, it stated that the proposal does not adversely impact upon the amenities of our adjoining neighbours. The Committee considered that these changes to condition 1. of the approved application for the site would have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbours. Highway Authority 4.4 No objections 5. Conservation Officer 5.1 I raise concerns over the proposed high level additional dormers which in my opinion adversely impact on the fenestration of this very good building. Roof scape and the roof design is an important part of this buildings character and contribution to the area and in my opinion this proposal has a detrimental impact. The lose of the rear garden wall to be replaced with a fence is unfortunate but if a good vertical boarded quality fence is constructed with planting as part of a landscape scheme this may be acceptable.
6. Other representations 6.1 Third Party Consultation Responses Three letters have been received from neighbouring residents raising the following concerns: No consultation from the developer regarding the 'minor changes' Two new dormers on the rear elevation would result in the appearance of a 4 storey dwelling that would be out of proportion and dominating Third floor windows at such close proximity to neighbouring dwellings is unacceptable. Object to the retention of the close board fence rather than the proposed boundary wall. The wall was proposed to minimise the disruption and impact of the proposal on neighbouring residents, had it not been included on the initial application objections would have been raised. Justification for the changes are not sufficient Benefits of a brick wall far outweigh the short term impact on plants existing fence is not good condition Bin collection point near neighbouring boundary will not be mitigated against with just the retention of the fence. Overlooking Noise, disturbance and smell from bin area The fence would not prevent the penetration of car lights or the same sound proofing as a wall. The fact that the Doctors nearby has a rear boundary fence is irrelevant as vehicles do not enter there at night. Changes to the plans are a cost cutting exercise The hedge proposed would take a considerable time to grow to the level required to mitigate the impacts of the development. Proposed windows are for living areas and are above the screening effect of the proposed hedge Proposed windows make the top floor flats three bedroom units. 6.2 Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com. 7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property 8. Relevant Planning History App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/E/04/001069 FUL Demolish existing building and W 09 ALC erect 9No flats with garage block. September 2004 1/E/04/001179 CAC Demolish existing building. W 09 September 2004 ALC 1/E/04/002021 FUL Convert existing building into 5No self contained flats, demolish erect new extension to form 4No self-contained flats. R 20 December 2004
1/E/04/002021 (Appeal) REF Convert existing building into 5No self contained flats, demolish erect new extension to form 4No self-contained flats. DIS 1/E/04/002085 PEN Demolish rear extension UNK 1/E/05/000771 FUL Make alterations to convert existing building into 7No self-contained flats, demolish erect new extension to form 2No self-contained flats. W 1/E/05/002095 FUL Make alterations to convert existing building into 7No self-contained flats, demolish erect new extension to form 2No self-contained flats 1/E/77/000489 FUL CHANGE USE OF HOUSE TO NURSING HOME 1/E/80/000870 FUL USE NURSING HOME AS NURSING AGENCY 1/E/86/000252 Alterations and extensionto Nursing Home WD/D/14/001375 FUL The proposed conversion and extension from a care home into six self-contained flats WD/D/15/000382 FUL Conversion from a Care Home into six self-contained flats. WD/D/15/001755 CWC Request for confirmation of compliance with conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Planning Approval WD/D/15/000382 05 July 2005 17 August 2005 R 23 December 2005 A 31 October 1977 R 24 September 1980 A A A 27 October 1986 22 August 2014 15 April 2015 25 November 2015 KH KH KH 9. The Development Plan West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (Adopted) 2015 INT1 Sustainable development ENV1 Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest ENV4 Heritage assets ENV10 The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 The design and positioning of buildings ENV16 Amenity SUS2 Distribution of development COM9 Parking standards in new development 10. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The following sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application: Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Good Design Section 11 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
11. Supplementary planning documents 11.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (adopted 2009) Policy (a) Work in harmony with the site and its surroundings Policy (e) Make efficient use of land Policy (h) Maintain and enhance local character Policy (i) Create high quality architecture 12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 Conservation Area Appraisals Dorchester Conservation Area (Adopted) 2003 13. Planning issues 13.1 Design / Visual Amenity The applicant is seeking planning permission for the variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission WD/D/15/000382 to include revisions to the approved scheme at 8 Queens Avenue, Dorchester. The proposed changes include the following: The addition of 2no new conservation rooflights to the rear elevation. A ground floor west elevation window would be narrowed by 100mm. On the south elevation it is proposed to amend the central dormer window, increasing it in height to accommodate a new lift shaft, double doors rather than single doors are proposed for the top floor balconies, the first floor central doors will be replaced with two single windows and access to the balcony will be gained from doors within the reveals and the ground floor entrance doors will be omitted to leave the porch open. On the eastern elevation one of the first floor windows is to be omitted from the scheme. In addition to the above it is proposed that the rear boundary fence would be retained rather than being replaced by the 1.8 metre brick boundary wall initially proposed. The plans also show details of the front boundary fencing and the access gates which would be set 6 metres back within the site. 13.2 Initially the proposal included the installation of two new rear dormer windows which were not considered to be appropriate and would have created an overly fussy elevation with the appearance of a 4 storey property. These dormer windows were considered to detrimentally impact on the overall character of the property and as such the agent amended the plans to replace the proposed dormers with high level conservation rooflights, which are considered to be acceptable. The proposed alterations to the fenestration are now considered to be of an appropriate standard in design and would be in keeping with the character of the building and the surrounding properties. The revision, omission and replacement of the windows and doors proposed are small in scale and are not considered to significantly alter the overall appearance of the property. 13.3 The proposed front boundary wall, railings and the access gates are all considered appropriate and inkeeping with the character of Queens Avenue. Whilst the omission of the proposed rear boundary wall is unfortunate, the retention of the rear boundary fence is considered appropriate and would not detrimentally effect the visual amenities of the site or surrounding area. This is especially the case given that the proposal still includes the planting of new hedging along the rear boundary.
13.4 Residential Amenity The application property is situated within a substantial plot. The north, west and east elevation all face neighbouring residential properties. The changes proposed to the east and west elevations are small in scale and would not result in any issues of loss of privacy or overlooking. 13.5 The proposed rear rooflights are situated a significant distance away from the neighbouring properties to the north, No's 7 and 9 Coburg Road, at around 30m distant, and are located at a height to ensure that the proposal would not result in any actual overlooking over and above the previously approved scheme. 13.6 The retention of the existing rear boundary fencing instead of the erection of a 1.8 metre brick wall as previously proposed has resulted in the receipt of several objections from neighbouring residents. Whilst the concerns raised are acknowledged and understood, it is not considered that the proposed retention of the fencing would result in such significant detrimental impacts on the neighbouring properties to warrant the refusal of the application. Hedges are proposed to be planted to the front of the fencing and whilst it is accepted that these will take some time to establish and fully grow, the hedge will would provide an additional buffer between the neighbouring properties and the car parking area. Overall it is not considered that this aspect of the proposal would have any detrimental impacts on the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. 13.7 Impact on Parking and Highway Safety The proposed alterations and the front boundary details, given their scale and positioning would not effect the existing access or off street parking. As such there are no concerns with regard to parking and highway safety. 13.8 Plans Superseded by this Amendment Drawing no. 13/11/05 rev A Drawing no. 13/11/04 rev A 14. Summary 14.1 The amended proposals are considered to be of an appropriate and respect the existing property, creating a balanced overall appearance which preserves the character of the property, the visual amenity of the wider conservation area and, as such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. 14.2 The amended proposal is not considered to have any significant detrimental impacts on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. 14.3 It is not considered that there will be any impact upon the previously approved pattern of access to the properties or upon the provision of off road parking as a result of the proposed amendments. 14.4 As such, the proposed amendments are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies: INT1, ENV1, ENV4, ENV10, ENV11, ENV12, ENV16, SUS2 and COM9 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (Adopted) October 2015, Policies: a, h and i of the Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidance (adopted 2009) and Sections: 6, 7, 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve with conditions i. Plans list ii. iii. iv. Standard 3 year expiry The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the car parking facilities and turning spaces shown on the approved plan have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas shall be maintained, kept free of obstruction and retained for the purposes specified. No development shall be commenced until a sample roof tile and sample panels of the proposed external facing materials have been erected on site, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed. v. No development shall commence until full details comprising plans at a scale of 1:20 of the following items shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Hereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such details as have been agreed. a) Eaves and barges b) New external windows c) New external doors d) Rainwater goods vi. No development shall take place until all existing trees, shrubs and other natural features not scheduled for removal have been fully safeguarded and fenced in accordance with an arboricultural method statement to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.