Proposal: Construction of a detached dwelling with associated amenity following the demolition of the existing detached bungalow.

A Member asked for clarification about the number of bedrooms in the current dwelling.  The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control advised confusion had arisen with the application due to being a two-bedroom property on construction, but two additional bedrooms had lawfully been added since, this had been confirmed by the site visit of the case officer where 4 bedrooms were observed.  The property was therefore lawfully a four-bedroom house and the application should be considered as such, with an existing four bedroom dwelling effectively making a lawful fallback position.

This would be a key point in the determination of the application due to objections primarily being around the number of parking spaces. The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control advised that parking standards for four and five bedroom properties were the same, resulting in the impact of the fallback position being the same. It was clear that the current arrangement was not a satisfactory one, however in planning terms this proposal did not make this situation worse. Planning applications are not expected to solve existing issues (though if they can then obviously that is a benefit). No material increase in harm could be demonstrated and as such it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient parking.

Significant concern was raised by the Committee about the parking situation, and the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control agreed that if the application was being submitted as a fresh site it would be at odds with the recently adopted parking standards SPD and therefore would be unlikely to secure permission, but the fallback position was so compelling that no harm could be  demonstrated in planning terms and a reason for refusal could not be justified. 

Concern was also raised about how the proposed dwelling would accept deliveries due to the lack of parking options for a delivery vehicle, and whilst the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control agreed with the concern, it was advised that this was an existing problem and so due regard once again had to be given to the fallback position (i.e. the current dwelling would no doubt receive deliveries and as such this is an existing problem).  The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control added that the Highway Authority had not objected to the application.

Concern was also raised on the impact of traffic during the construction phase.  This would be managed through a construction transport management plan. The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control agreed that as members had been particularly concerned about this issue the details of the construction management plan would be circulated to the committee on receipt, however it would need to be determined in line with normal processes.  It was added that the time limited inconvenience caused by construction were not sufficient grounds to reject a transport management plan.

            Resolved that –

The CHDMBC was authorised to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions 1-11.