Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The amended application sought approval for the demolition of number 8 Montreal Road and the erection of 1 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom houses.

 

The Officer highlighted to the Committee additional standard conditions CC80 and CC81A to remove permitted development rights for extensions and additional windows before the start of the report.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Matter.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

     i.        The application goes against 3/10,3/10c 3/4, 4/7 and 4/11 of the 2006 Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework

    ii.        The Officer’s report states that the proposed application is similar to that of application 14/0480/FUL, this is factually incorrect.

   iii.        The proposed application can be similar to the previous application as there is now an additional house on the plans.

  iv.        The full permitted development is 33% bigger with a significant increase to the roof profile with the number of bedrooms increasing from five to a total of eleven.

   v.        Permitted development had been removed as condition from application 14/0480/FUL to prevent an increase which had not been referenced in the Officer’s report.

  vi.        Stated than an appeal to increase the roofline for application 14/0480/FUL had been dismissed by a Government Inspector the previous year.

 vii.        The proposed application would violate the historical character of the area and have a negative impact to the surrounding properties.

viii.        The development would sit on the boundary of the Mill Road conservation area and is opposed by the Mill Road conservation society.

  ix.        The plot for this application is not for suitable development as this would take away all the garden land.

   x.        The proposal would have an adverse impact, in terms of height, landscape and the closing down of available views to neighbouring houses which would dominate the local area.

 

Amy Richardson (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The following statement was read out from Ward Councillor Zoe Mogadhas:

 

     i.        I am writing to support and highlight the concerns already raised by the Romsey resident residing at 380 Mill Rd with regard to the proposed development planned at the back of his family garden.

    ii.        The proposed site was a locked in section of land previously used as garden and allotments. Gardens back onto this fenced open space area from Mill Road, Montreal Road, Montreal Square and Hobart Road. The garden at 380 Mill Road is a short section of lawn with a shed and will be particularly affected by the new buildings proposed on this land.

   iii.        The main objection is one of enclosure. The National Planning Policy Framework supports the idea that protection be given to the amenity of existing dwellings, they should not feel enclosed and dominated.

  iv.        Currently the residents sitting in either kitchen or garden have an open feeling of skyline due to the distance of proximity to the next property. The height of the proposed houses on this site will completely cut out the feeling of space and light currently available to them.

   v.        The original planning permission granted by East Area Committee to build on this site was done with inaccurate measurements contained within the report to committee. The report stated an 18 metre distance from the house at 380 Mill Rd to the new build property proposed when plans show the distance will be more likely around 14 metres.  Can planning officers clarify the significance of this mistake in the granting of the original planning consent, with reference to the section in the NPPF which looks to protect the amenity of existing dwellings from the feeling of being enclosed and dominated?

  vi.        The report before you suggests that the new proposal is similar in scale to the original proposal but there is a significant increase in the intensification from 3 to 4 houses, 2 storeys to 3 and 5 bedrooms to 11.

 vii.        On 9 January 2013, John Evans, planning officer, states that permitted development rights was agreed to be removed from this site. An inspector had visited this site and declined a request to raise the ridgeline by 60cm saying the residents of no 378-380 would feel enclosed.​

 

Councillor Baignet addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

 

     i.        Although the report states that the development would not overlook Hobart Road there would be a negative impact to this area with a domar window at the back of the proposed property overlooking this road.

    ii.        Significant invasion of privacy on the surrounding properties.

   iii.        The proposed development would bring an increase to noise.

  iv.        Create a loss of light to the neighbouring properties.

   v.        Expressed concern that there would not be suitable access for emergency access to the back of the properties due to the development on the corner of Mill Road and Montreal Road.

  vi.        The back gardens represent a haven to many of the surrounding residents which would be affected by this development.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (5 Votes to 3 votes) to grant the application for full planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the condition and additional conditions recommended by the officer.