95355 - 26 FAIRLEA ROAD

registration date:  29 / 03 / 2010

Location:  Almost opposite N end of LPE in Marsh Lane (shown on the plan as Gosport Street)

Proposal:  Single-storey side extension (Lawful Development Certificate that permission is not required for proposal)

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 0, others 4

History:  none

Comment:  A small lateral extension to one of several bungalows to add an en suite bathroom to a bedroom.

Recommendation:  No action

 

95442 - Land adjacent 1 TITHE BARN

registration date:  No date

Location: 

Proposal:  1 pair of semi-detached houses (made invalid)

Statutory Class: Minor Dwellings

Consulted:  neighbours 16, others 12

History:

no              applicant            registered         proposal                                                 decision

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82960    Mr T Baker   13/10/2004   Pair of semi-detached houses    refused (delegated), allowed at appeal 16/06/2007, not started yet

91339    Mrs Bishop   20/11/2007   2 storey side extn (two flats)     granted (delegated), not started yet

94713    Mr T Baker   27/10/2009   Two-storey block of 4 flats       refused (delegated) - "unsympathetic, cramped, intrusive")

 

Comment:  This is a complicated story, which revolves around a small plot of land on the corner of Tithe Barn and Lower Buckland Road, which was once the garden of 1 Tithe Barn.   The Design and Access Statement supplies the following explanation:

 "Planning permission was granted on appeal for a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the adjacent site in June 2006  .  .  .  Planning permission was also granted, in April 2008 (91339), for a two storey addition to No.1 Tithe Barn, to provide for 2 one-bedroom flats. However, having reconsidered the issues that have been raised here over the past six years with the various proposals that have been made, it seems clear that the impact of development upon the street scene has been a constant theme. Whilst the approved extension to provide two flats at 1 Tithe Barn is acceptable in street scene terms, they would nonetheless leave an uncharacteristic gap in the street frontage that, whilst not unacceptable in itself, may nonetheless benefit from an alternative form of development. It is therefore proposed to ‘replace’ the permission for the two flats with the current proposals, which involve the construction of another pair of semi-detached, two bedroom dwellings.  .  .  .  Clearly there are advantages to the applicant in such a scheme compared with the approved flats, and he would not seek to deny that. However, there are also advantages to the character and appearance of the area generally, as the gap between the approved pair of semis (2006) and the approved flats (2008) is not a gap that is repeated elsewhere in Tithe Barn. There is an opportunity, therefore, to round off the development of this end of the street in a more cohesive manner which is more faithful to the pattern of local development.

This is an award-winning example of weasel wording, of interest to all students of the genre.   It is hard to avoid concluding that the aim remains maximum densification for maximum return.   The objections levelled at the last (refused) application (94713) apply with equal force, and to rub it in the planners have made known a requirement for a Section 106 agreement as a prior condition, as follows:

1. A contribution of £7,940 towards transportation improvements.

2. A contribution of £4,673.20p towards public open space. This figure is based on a formula of 4 bedrooms multiplied by 3.5 divided by 1000 multiplied by £333,800.

3. The affordable housing contribution is not yet known and I will confirm this as soon as I can.The application has been invalidated

Recommendation:  We objected to 94173 and I recommend that we object again.   I will draft if others agree