The Lymington Society

 

Weekly Planning Search - Nov 11th 2009

94713 - Land adjacent to 1 TITHE BARN

registration date:  27/10/2009

Location:  first plot in on N side of Tithe Barn

Proposal:  One two-storey block of 4 flats

Consulted:  neighbours 12, others 8

Comment:  This application is the first "developer" application to be considered under the new Core Strategy policies.   It seeks to build on what was formerly part of a generous garden.

 

 History.   79245 sought a pair of semi-detached houses:  it was refused in October 2003.   80021 sought a two-storey block of two flats.   It was refused in January 2004 and an appeal was dismissed in June of that year.   82960 again sought two semi-detached houses, and was refused in December 2004.   The subsequent appeal was allowed with conditions a full year and a half later, in June 2006.   (It expires in June 2011).   In spite of this, a further application (90348) for a "slightly enlarged and re-orientated" pair of semi-detached houses was submitted in June 2007.   It too was refused, this time by the DCC (all previous refusals had been at delegated level) in August 2007.   The inevitable appeal was dismissed in January 2008.   The current application seeks four one-bedroom "flats" in  a single building.

 

Past Refusals.   The Council's refusals have all along been on similar grounds:  to quote one, "a) it would be an undesirable overintensive use of the site having a cramped layout with inadequate private amenity space that would lead to a poor environment for future residents that would be out of keeping with the character and pattern of development in the locality and harmful to local amenity, b) by reason of its close proximity and two storey height it would create a poor relationship with surrounding properties having an imposing and oppressive effect upon adjacent residential development."   (To these was added in the most recent case the non-provision of an open space contribution, more of which below).   The Inspector, one need hardly add, took a more PPG-3-like view of the first ground, dismissing the appeal solely for the likely "cramping" of 1 Tithe Barn itself rather than for the wider malign effect inherent in the Council's second refusal ground.

 

Section 106.   The Design Statement attached to the current application is comprehensive and typical of its kind - that is, it is necessary to allow for a degree of semantic parallax error when attempting to interpret it.   It claims that the latest proposal, which envisages a different building from that most recently refused, overcomes the Inspector's objection.   It also goes to some lengths to argue that as it is a development of earlier applications, no contributions can be required for transport, open space or affordable housing.   The NFDC's Development Control Manager takes a different view:  in a letter to the developer's agent he says "my initial review does indicate that it might not be capable of being recommended for approval  .  . ." - a hint that the developer might wish to reconsider his willingness to enter into Section 106 Agreement.   Mr Groom points out that the Core Strategy is now in force and the rules have changed:  "The comments you have made about contributions within your design and access statement are noted. However, it is important to point out that what you are now proposing is a materially different proposal to the extant planning permission (rather than a slight amendment with the same description). Moreover, the new Core Strategy policies have now been adopted and therefore should apply. It is felt that making appropriate contributions is fully justified".   This is an interesting shot in the opening engagement of the new phase of the planning struggle between Council and developers.

 

Other Factors.   The application is interesting for other reasons.   What is now proposed is a single two-storey building divided into four identical one-bedroom flats.   Although one should not over-estimate the developer's altruism, the tiny dwellings are presumably aimed at the bottom of the market - ie literally rather than euphemistically affordable, which makes it odd that they should entail a contribution towards yet-to-be-built "affordable" homes, open space and transport, thereby increasing their price.   Certainly they would be a welcome addition to the stock of such dwellings in this town, though their appeal would be to a limited market because of their very small size (children would be impossible to fit in and even spouses would have to struggle).    On the other hand, the proposed building is an unimaginative square cream-painted-render blob which will do nothing to contribute any sense of local disitnctiveness or even improve its rather dull surroundings, which are dominated by the uniform council-estate-style buildings of Tithe Barn.   A feature of the area is the number of parked vehicles which line the roads, and the proposed provision of only two off-road parking spaces will do nothing to reduce their number - though as ever, the highways people now see this as a good way of calming the traffic.  

 

Curiously, although past applications have drawn a few objections, this one is the subject of a petition with 16 signatures in favour.   Odd.

 

There is as yet no case officer's report.

 

Recommendation:  On balance, I believe we should object, echoing the Council's former reasons for refusal.   On the matter of Section 106, we should remain silent.  It would be nice to get in a few words about the need to encourage a bit more imagination in design, but local distinctiveness has as yet no standing.

 

94710 - 40 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD

registration date:  28/10/2009

Location:  3rd on left S of Avenue Road junction

Proposal:  Detached garage

Consulted:  neighbours 19, others 5

Comment:  It's a bit more than a garage - the application is for a 2-bay oak-framed building with softwood cladding and tiled roof  to house a garage, a carport and a log store.   It looks rather attractive.

Recommendation:  No action

 

94733 - MAPLE HOUSE, QUEEN KATHERINE ROAD

registration date:  26/10/2009

Location:  E side of the road, 1 house S of Travis Perkins

Proposal:  One and two-storey rear extensions

Consulted:  neighbours 6, others 4

Comment:  A former council house in admitted need of refurbishment.   The proposed extension is modest and the accompanying refurbishment will enhance the appearance of the area

Recommendation:  No action

 

94472 - 36 STANLEY ROAD

registration date:  30/10/2009

Location:  Almost opposite Spring Road

Proposal:  One & two-storey rear extension

Consulted:  neighbours 6, others 6

Comment:  A modest extension at the back of a 100+-year-old house, replacing a smaller 1960s extension

Recommendation:  No action

 

94775 - 16 AMBLESIDE ROAD

registration date:  28/10/2009

Location:  8th house in from Broad Lane, N side

Proposal:  Two-storey side extension; side porch

Consulted:  neighbours 6, others 4

Comment:  A modest extension to a semi-detached house

Recommendation:  No action

 

94807 - FERRY COTTAGE, 19 BATH ROAD (Conservation Area)

registration date:  28/10/2009

Location:  One of the houses facing the river opposite the recreation ground

Proposal:  Second-storey extension; balcony

Consulted:  neighbours 6, others 6

Comment:  The plan is to add to the exisitng jumble of rooftop balconies along this Conservation Area road, to improve views of the river and the Solent.   I think the result is rather pleasing, but others may differ.

Recommendation:  No action