BHH Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee

BHH – Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee

Thursday 2ndNovember 2017.

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Airey, Craig and House.

Description of Application

1. The application seeks to replace the existing dwelling on the site with a two storey, flat roof dwelling. The property has rendered elevations and aluminium framed fenestration and doors, with a roof terrace and parapet walls, all of which are features found within the estate.

1. The upper floor provides the primary living accommodation. The main accommodation area is formed of an open plan kitchen and dining area on the north-west side of the property. Steps lead from the dining area to a terrace on the west side of the dwelling. The living area is on the north east side of the property, full length sliding door serving the living room take advantage of the views across the marina and lead out onto the terrace. The southern side of the upper floor contains the master bedroom with an access on to the roof terrace.

1. The lower floor provides a double garage, 4no. bedrooms (3 of which are served by an en-suite) and a separate bathroom, study and utility room. The proposed dwelling relocates the garage serving the property to the northwest of the site bringing the pedestrian access closer to the entrance to site.

Topography

1. There are slight changes in level across site. Within the wider estate ground levels rise from the marina to the east to the properties that form Crowsport to the west.

Trees

1. There are no significant trees on site but there is a significant tree on the marina side of the east boundary. At the time of making the application there was a further significant tree outside and to the east of the site which has been removed.

Site Characteristics and Character of Locality

1. The site contains a single storey flat roof bungalow predominately unaltered its original design. The building, like the rest of the estate, is of an Art Deco style designed by Robert Cromie. The bungalow did not form part of the original development of Crowsport but is in fact a later addition to the east of the original estate.

1. Crowsport itself is a private residential development, accessed via private drive from Satchell Lane and the marina. It is a located within a special policy area with quite a distinct architectural character. There is a degree of uniformity across development. The development has a pleasant layout with views towards river located the eastern side of Crowsport, The site (No.28) and the neighbouring property (No.12) have a particularly confined relationship to each other. Such a relationship is not typical of the wider area.

1. There are various alterations to the properties of Crowsport including a number of first floor extensions and replacement dwellings. The application site remains one of the last undeveloped properties of Crowsport.

Relevant Planning History

1. There is no planning history associated with the development. However, there is a separate application to the proposal to demolish the dwelling (D/17/80338) which will be presented to the committee for consideration at the same time.

1. The Crowsport Estate as a whole has seen a significant number of applications to alter, extend and replace the properties within it.

Representations Received

1. Across the two applications C/17/80337 and D/17/80338 a total of 4 letters of representation from 3 addresses have been received providing the following comments:

• The proposed design, whilst elegant, is contrary to the layout and logic of the original design and estate style which was rectangular and Bauhaus.

• This represents an over development with the first floor area excessive in scale compared to the ground floor of the property (original and proposed)

• This is an over-development of the site increasing from a 2 bedroom bungalow to a 5 bed dwelling including a double garage.

• This loss of the last remaining original house of the Crowsport estate

• Excessive height of the building detrimental to the originally design concept and should be restricted to the height of the neighbouring property No.27.

• Overshadowing and loss of light for adjacent properties

• The finish materials are not within the conservation area policy.

Consultation Responses

1. Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council – Object

The Council at this stage wish to object to this application. Although the Council recognises the need for substantial work to this property to achieve a modern, fit-for-purpose building it believes that the proposal is not appropriate in its current form. Generally the estate comprises of singular properties set within the plot creating an open and spacious feel. The proposal does not reflect this and was felt to be oversized in relation to the plot itself. There were particular concerns that the roof height was higher than the adjoining property to the south (which itself is a large and dominant building) and has the effect of dwarfing the property to the south. The structure as proposed will occupy nearly the full width of the plot and with a higher roof height will create a loss of views into the estate and the village more generally from the foreshore and river. The presence of the terrace further increases the feeling of bulk.

1. It was felt that by rotating the main building through 45 degrees the impression of mass could be reduced and a building that would fit more naturally within the plot could be achieved.

1. Heritage and Design Officer – No objection. The revisions to the scheme fall in line with the original scheme design. The revised form now fits in with the both the adjacent buildings and the general layout of the estate, respecting the original design concept and its neighbours. Although slightly higher than no.27, one would be hard pressed to notice the difference. The first floor is in keeping with the general 'grain' of the built form here while not being overbearing to no.12. and the ground floor is aligned to both sides, almost as a plinth with the garage played down and the overhang giving weight and presence to the entrance that one is naturally led to. Recommend conditions related to materials are included.

1. Environment Agency – No objection.

1. Head of Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions that secure a construction noise survey, construction management plan, piling assessment and a restriction to the hours of working. No burning is to take place on site relating to the clearance of the site.

Policy Context

• Designation Applicable to Site
• Hamble Conservation area
• Crowsport and Campbell Road Special Policy Area

Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies

1. Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 Saved policies

• 59.BE -Design criteria
• 169.LB -New buildings within Conservation Areas
• 170.LB -Demolition of a building within a Conservation Area
• 184.LB -Crowsport and Campbell Road

1. Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 Policies:

• S12 – Heritage assets
• DM1 – General criteria for new development

Supplementary Planning Documents

1. The following Supplementary Planning Documents apply:

• Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)
• Supplementary Planning Document: Character Area Appraisals – Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Area 35

National Planning Policy Framework

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Para 14 sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14). Local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.

1. Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment (p30-32)

1. Paragraph 126 “Local planning authorities should…recognize that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.”

1. Paragraph 129 “local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal…They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposed on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimize conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

1. Paragraph 132 “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.”

National Planning Practice Guidance

1. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

Policy Commentary

1. The above policies combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to character, appearance, setting and features of the Conservation Area.

Comment on Consultation Responses and Representations Received

1. The representations from the public have been received across both applications relating to the site. They are also based on the original submission dated 31st March 17 and the amended plans received 21st July 2017. In light of the comments made and some of the concerns raised further amended plans were sought and received on the 11th October 2017. No further consultation has been undertaken on these plans.

1. With regard to the points raised regarding the design of the proposal, the scale and height of development, parking, materials and the amenities of the neighbouring properties, these matters will form the considerations of the report below.

Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background

1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:-

"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

1. Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that Section 66(1) of the Act applies. This indicates that in considering whether to grant Conservation Area consent:

"The Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

1. In addition, Section 72(1) of the Act states:

“In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area of any powers (under the Planning Acts), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

1. Policy 59.BE of the Local Plan requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and fumes.

1. Policy 169.LB sets out the requirements for new building within a conservation area including the need to preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, its setting or the rhythm of the street-scene; be of appropriate design and materials and not generate excessive traffic movements detrimental to the area.

1. Policy 184.LB specifically relates to both Campbell Road, and the Crowsport Estate, and states that ‘development, including extensions, will not be permitted unless the size, scale and architectural style, materials proposed and detailing closely reflect that of the existing development.’

Demolition of the existing dwelling

1. The consideration of the demolition does not form part of this application. These matters are considered under a separate planning application D/17/80338.

Impact on the Character and appearance of the area and the Conservation Area

1. The application site lies within the Crowsport Special Policy Area, and is to be assessed against Policy 184.LB of the adopted Local Plan, which states:

‘In order to protect the special character of Crowsport, development including extensions, will not be permitted unless the size, scale and architectural style, materials proposed and detailing closely reflect that of the existing development’.

1. Crowsport formed part of the extension to the Hamble Conservation Area in 2008. The appraisal of the Crowsport estate within the Conservation Area advises that the original designs of the Crowsport development have been modified through the addition of ground and first floor accommodation, conservatories and garages. This has meant that some of the purity and simplicity associated with the Art Deco style has already been eroded and lost.

1. As the property remains one of, if not the last unaltered bungalows within the Crowsport development this could be considered to impose further pressure for the building to be retained.