Agenda item

Details:

2 detached two storey houses; 3 garages; landscaping; new access

Public Participants:

Mr Davies – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Lavender – Objector

Mr Smith - Objector

Additional Representations:

7 additional letters of objection, in the same terms as set out in the report.

The Tree Officer raised no objection subject to the imposition of an additional condition, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

The applicant had submitted amended plans to remove the eaves overhang from the buildings so the dimensions of the dwellings matched the existing floor plan.

Comment:

Cllrs Penson and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.  They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by the addition of a condition, and revised wording to condition 2, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

The Committee noted, with concern, that further inaccuracies in the plans had been corrected by the submission of amended details late the previous evening and considered whether the application should be deferred to allow proper assessment of the effect of those amendments.  They noted with additional concern that the objector speaking at the meeting had drawn their attention to further inaccuracies, including incorrectly showing the site to be level, instead of sloping as was obvious in the photographs of the site. This would affect the relationship with the properties in Old Farm Walk.

The Committee considered that the proposed development with 2 large detached properties represented an over development of the site.  The narrowness of the gap between the two proposed houses, and between those houses and No 19 Old Farm Walk, was out of character with the area, as set out in the Lymington Local Distinctiveness document.  This was compounded by the excessive height and bulk of the proposed properties.  The proximity of one of the houses to No 19 Old Farm Walk would inevitably lead to the loss of the vegetation screen along that boundary and, with no room for alternative planting to provide screening, together with the sloping site increasing the height of the patio proposed for that property, would lead to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to that neighbouring property.  The siting of the bin store was also cause for concern.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site with buildings of excessive bulk, scale and height in close proximity to each other which would be out of character with the surrounding more spacious pattern of development which is mainly characterised by lower buildings in a more spacious setting. As a result the proposals would be contrary to Policy CS 2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and the Lymington Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document.

2. The relationship of the proposed house on Plot 2 to the neighbour at No. 19 Old Farm Walk would give rise to an unneighbourly impact by reason of the height of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the site boundary. In addition the location of the proposed bin store in relation to the dwelling at No. 6 Oakfield would be unneighbourly by reason of its use and close proximity to this property. As a result the proposals would be contrary to Policy CS 2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.