1. art and entertainment
2. visual art and design
3. design

APPLICATION NO: WP/14/00972/FUL
29th April 2015
Demolition of existing dwelling and erect 2 new dwellings
20 BELLE VUE ROAD, WEYMOUTH, DT4 8RX
Mrs Curtis
Case Officer: Chris Moscrop
FOR DECISION
1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Grant Permission
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 This application proposes the demolition of the existing large detached house on
this 0.22 ha site on the south side of Belle Vue Road and its replacement with a new
semi-detached pair of 4 bedroomed dwellings. An existing outbuilding to the north west
of the site (containing a swimming pool) and a significant part of the existing rear garden
of 20 Belle Vue Road would be retained for use by the adjoining property 18 Belle Vue
Road.
2.2 The proposed new dwellings would be constructed from facing brick, natural stone
and clad walls, with powder coated metal windows and timber doors, under a tiled roof.
2.3 Each of the properties would include an integral double garage fronting onto a
courtyard with two accesses onto Belle Vue Road. The proposal also shows a new
boundary treatment to the road which is a continuation of that approved at No.18. The
applicants consider that this would reinstate the original brick wall plus railings style of
the Conservation Area “which has been lost in many locations and replaced with
inappropriate high boarded fences.”
2.4 The applicants have advised that the existing building has an inefficient design
which is “of little or no architectural merit.” They suggest that this part of the Bincleaves
Conservation Area “has an individual character marked by large “Edwardian” villas in
large plots. The former are separated from the road by high hedges giving a feeling of
privacy and exclusivity. A few of the houses are of architectural merit designed in the
“English Free School” manner, incorporating arts & crafts and Queen Anne features.” It
is their view however that 20 Belle Vue Road is “somewhat out of character” with this.
2.5 Reference is also made to the planning permission to demolish the existing house to
the west and to replace it with a new larger house in 2012. They have noted that in that
case the existing house was also considered to be neutral in the Conservation Area.
They say that construction is now under way on that project which includes the
installation of “an extensive dewatering scheme which stabilizes the site reducing the
risk of land slippage.” They advise that No. 20 also benefits from this work “as outlined
in the Stability Report submitted with the application.”
2.6 Reference is also made to the proposed dwellings benefitting from being sited
behind the ‘100 year line’ of predicted erosion.
2.7 They consider that the issues of stability, trees, landscape, and ecology, plus
conservation area enhancement that were all pertinent at No.18, also apply to this
scheme. Consequently reference has made to pre application discussions and that the
“suggestions made have been included in the submitted proposal.”
2.8 They are of the opinion that the proposal appears as a single large building to the
north on to Belle Vue Road in a traditional style, but that at the rear (south) the proposal
separates into 2 distinct dwellings in a more contemporary style linked only at roof level.
2.9 On the south elevations are proposed large areas of glass with overhanging
elements and balconies which they say link the living areas into the landscape.
Reference is made to all of the glazing on the east and west elevations being obscure
and that the balconies are given 1.5m obscure screens to protect neighbour privacy.
2.10 Since the original submission further revisions have been made. These aim to
echo some the best architectural features found in the neighbourhood, by the inclusion
of traditional strong gables and veranda details typical of the best surrounding houses.
Consequently the north, west and east elevations now have stone moulding details
found for example at No.14, as well as a deep set veranda at first level facing towards
the roadside. The applicants consider that this revised design approach is now more
traditional in appearance and more elegant in proportion and as such sits more
appropriately into the streetscape because of the suggested use of local vernacular
detail.
2.10 It is their view that whilst the accommodation provided is considerable, the overall
footprint is not much larger than the existing house. They also consider that care has
been taken to avoid adverse impact on the existing trees as the proposal has had
regard to the arboricultural report submitted with the scheme.
2.11 The application has been supported by; a Design & Access Statement, a Heritage
Statement, a Bat Report, a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, a Tree Survey and a Stability
Report.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Application No.
12/00166/FUL
Proposal
Demolish existing dwelling
and erect new dwelling
18 Belle Vue Road
Decision
Granted
(ADJOINING SITE)
00/00051/FUL
Erect single storey extension
Granted April 2000
Wyke End 20 Belle Vue Road
89/00675/FUL
Erect garage extension
Granted Aug 1989
Wyke End 20 Belle Vue Road
88/00844/OUT
Demolition of house and erect
12 flats
Refused Nov 1988
Wyke End 20 Belle Vue Road
4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted Weymouth & Portland Local Plan
4.1 This site falls within the Development Boundary shown on the Proposals map of the
adopted Local Plan. As such Policy D1 is relevant. This indicates that residential,
employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area may be
permitted.
4.2 Policy D3 (General Development Criteria) requires that buildings respect the
character of the area and should not have a seriously detrimental impact on the privacy
and amenity of existing occupiers and new occupiers and new development should not
pose a risk to highway safety.
4.3 Policy B1 (General Design Criteria) requires that extensions and alterations to the
existing building should be in keeping with the existing building and reflect the position
and scale of neighbouring buildings. Tree issues are covered under Policy B2 of the
adopted Local Plan.
4.4 Policy B8 (Protection of Character of Conservation Areas) indicates that proposals
for development in Conservation Areas will be permitted provided that they would
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and provided that:
(i)
they would not result in the loss of buildings, open spaces, views or other
features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the
area;
(ii)
they would not result in a significant loss of garden area, trees, hedges or
walls which contribute to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area;
(iii)
they would not result in the loss of architectural features such as windows,
doors, chimneys, porches, which contribute to the character or appearance of the
conservation area.
4.5 The south eastern part of the site (away from the existing/proposed dwelling) is a
cliff face which is affected by Local Open Space, World Heritage and Site of Special
Scientific Interest designations. As such you should also have regard to Policies C9
and N15 of the adopted Local Plan.
4.6 Policies T6, and T17 deal with highway and parking matters.
Draft West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan
4.7 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that:
“From the day of publication [of the NPPF], decision-takers may also give
weight (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant
policies in emerging plans according to:



the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the
preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies
(the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight
that may be given); and
the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan
to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the
emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight
that may be given)”.
4.8 Now that the extent of objections to the submitted plan is known and the
examination is progressing to the hearings stage, we can start to apply varying degrees
of weight to our emerging policies in accordance with the NPPF guidance. As far as
this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENV1 – Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest
ENV4 – Heritage Assets
ENV10- The landscape and townscape setting
ENV12 The design and positioning of building
ENV 16 – Amenity
COM7 – Creating a safe and efficient transport network
COM9- Parking standards in new development
National Planning Policy Framework
4.9 The national advice in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development, In terms of decisiontaking this means:
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay; and
• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of
date, grant permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework
taken as a whole; or where specific policies in the Framework indicate
development should be restricted.
4.10 In terms of conserving and enhancing the natural environment the NPPF says that
planning should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and
soils; recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimise impacts on
biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the
commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The aim is to prevent both new
and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or
being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or
land instability; and to remediate or mitigate; despoiled, degraded, derelict,
contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. The primary objective remains to
conserve or enhance biodiversity and to encourage opportunities to incorporate
biodiversity in and around developments.
4.11 In terms of housing, the NPPF indicates that there is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development and a need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes,
widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed
communities. It suggests that Planning Authorities should also consider resisting
inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development
would cause harm to the local area.
4.12 Para 56 of the NPPF indicates that the Government attaches great importance to
the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to
making places better for people. The NPPF further advises the importance of achieving
high quality and inclusive design, but suggests that planning decisions should not
attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes or stifle innovation, originality
or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development
forms or styles. It does however consider it proper to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness. It does consider visual appearance and the architecture of individual
buildings to be very important factors, but suggests that securing high quality and
inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Consequently it says that
planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the
integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. In
determining applications, it says that great weight should be given to outstanding or
innovative designs that help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.
Furthermore that permission should be refused for development having poor design
which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an
area and the way it functions. However permission should not be refused for buildings
or infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about
incompatibility with the existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by
good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact
would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the
proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).
4.13 Therefore if the proposal does not achieve good design then it is not sustainable
development and so the ‘presumption in favour’ of the development does not apply.
4.14 Part 12 of the NPPF relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
The following paragraphs are relevant Para 124 - Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular
significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal
(including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking
account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should
take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal
on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s
conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF suggests that the application should be
accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Significance.
Para 131 - In determining planning applications, local planning authorities
should take account of:
●the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage
assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
●the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to
sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
●the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local
character and distinctiveness.
Para 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. As heritage assets are
irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing
justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or
garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated
heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,
protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and
II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly
exceptional.
4.15 Part 10 of the NPPF relates to meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding
and coastal change. The NPPF advises that you should reduce the risk from coastal
change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or adding to the
impacts of physical changes to the coast. It suggests that you should ensure that
development will be safe over its planned lifetime, will not have an unacceptable impact
on coastal change and that the character of the coast (including designations) is not
compromised.
4.16 In terms of decision taking the following are also relevantPara 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way
to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decisiontaking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality
development on the ground.
Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems,
and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
Paras 203 and 204 of the NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should
consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable
through the use of conditions or planning obligations.
Paragraph 28 of the NPPF supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types
of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing
buildings and well designed new buildings.
Paragraph 112 states that planning decisions should encourage the effective use of
land by re-using land has been previously developed, provided that it is not of high
environmental value.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
4.17 Supplementary Planning Guidance 2: Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
Conservation Area Appraisal
4.18 Belle Vue Road is an example of an area of very large houses built at the turn of
the century in unusually large plots. Although the Belle Vue Road area contains only
one building listed as being of architectural or historical interest, it does hold particular
historical connections with Weymouth and the architect Crickmay, who in 1891
designed the layout of the area which was subdivided into large individual plots. The
area is characterised by large individually designed Victorian and Edwardian brick built
buildings, grass verges and high hedges and the area possesses a distinct character
not present elsewhere in Weymouth.
5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Dorset County Council (Highways)
5.1 The DCC as Highway Authority has no objection to this proposal, subject to a
condition concerning the access crossing.
6. OTHER CONSULTATIONS
WPBC Technical Services
6.1 In relation to this site, Technical Services had previously advised that because of
the risk profile in this area, proposals should be supported by a geotechnical
appraisal/vulnerability assessment, to demonstrate whether the development would
have an adverse impact on the stability of the coastal slope or be at risk from coastal
change to ensure the safety and serviceability of the development and the surrounding
area & properties. This has been carried out.
WPBC Conservation Officer – now supports the proposal see paras 8.8-8.9 below
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Weymouth Civic Society strongly objects to this planning application. They consider
that the whole development appears far too bulky, overbearing and over-dominant. As
such they consider it would be out of keeping with the character of the Conservation
Area, which it would neither preserve nor enhance. In their opinion the whole design
lacks cohesion, by reason of the different design approach to each of the elevations.
They say that the front elevation is too large and massive for this sensitive location and
that the east and west elevations are disturbing, incongruous, bulky, and simply ugly. In
their view the three storey height is far too massive, particularly as it would be visible
over the lower roofs of the adjacent single storey buildings. Moreover they say that they
bear no relationship with the front elevation.
In their opinion the rear elevation is an incongruous three-storey high, vast and bleak
expanse of glass, which is devoid of articulation and quite out of keeping with the
Conservation Area, especially as it would be seen in views from Portland Harbour.
They consider the existing house to be one of the essential ingredients of the Belle Vue
Road Conservation Area. They understand that the house was built c. 1912 for John
Groves, the Weymouth brewer, by the Crickmay architectural practice, who designed
the layout of the area and other houses in this road and that consequently it has
significant local connections. As a result they are very concerned that this proposal
would have a serious detrimental effect on the distinctive character of the Conservation
Area.
Representations have been received from the occupiers of 7 properties. The material
issues raised are Detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area. This character
was recognised by this applications applicant and architect in the design of the










approved new dwelling on the adjacent plot at No.18. The adjacent No. 18 has
been designed with two storey eaves.
No justification to demolish the existing 1912 house. One of the significant
buildings that define the character of Belle Vue Road. House designed by G R
Crickmay and Sons commissioned by or for Herbert Groves of the John Groves
Brewery company. The interior is full of character with a rather grand staircase
and numerous original fireplaces. The frontage is a flamboyant and stylish period
gem. One of the largest and most distinctive houses. One of the reasons for the
Conservation Area designation. It is a non designated Heritage asset which
makes an unrivalled and positive contribution to the significance of the
Conservation Area. The Authority should take the opportunity to apply for listed
status.
Unsympathetic conversion of a tithe bam not a single dwelling. Replacement with
two completely out-of-character dwellings. Claims the elevation are 'historic' but
the window details and materials are contemporary. They will stick out like a
couple of sore thumbs, visible to everyone who walks the Coastal Path.
Proposal is out of keeping with the character of the conservation area which is
defined by its Victorian and Arts and Crafts detached houses. Visible and
prominent. The attempt to mesh 'historic' and 'contemporary' elements has
resulted in elevations that can only be described as hideous. There is every
justification for the conservation of No 20 Belle Vue Road and absolutely none for
demolition.
One of the few roads left in Weymouth with larger properties of such individual
design. There is no reason to demolish this beautiful house, and to replace it with
two modern dwellings that would destroy the character of the road and introduce
unnecessary over-development. The jumble of styles, materials and rooflines are
a disgrace and are completely incongruous.
Three storeys would have a dominating and detrimental impact. Out of character
with the domestic two storeys of the Conservation Area.
When has "inefficiency" been a valid reason for the destruction of an asset? If
that were the case, half the stately homes of England would have been
demolished long ago.
On the east side of the site are the bungalows. East elevation three storey wall
close to the boundary which will dominate the bungalows and this would have a
detrimental impact on these properties.
Tinkering round the edges of the scheme does not alter the fact that the applicant
is proposing to demolish a distinguished period house with a known history,
fronting onto a prestigious street that forms a part of the South West Coast Path
in what is perhaps Weymouth's finest Victorian/Edwardian Conservation Area.
Reference to the NPPF in terms of a presumption in favour of preservation.
Avoiding loss of buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or
appearance of the conservation area.
Permitting demolition would set a precedent which could lead to the loss of other
significant properties and the redevelopment of their large plots.
8. PLANNING ISSUES
8.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:






Policy;
Design/Conservation;
Land Stability;
Highways;
Trees/Nature conservation
Amenity.
8.2 Background- As mentioned above, a previous planning permission granted approval
for the replacement of the adjoining property to the west (No18) with a new dwelling. In
coming to this decision you accepted that in that case the existing dwelling was not
typical of the character of the Belle Vue Conservation Area, but that it was a mid 20th
century house that did not benefit from the attention to architectural detailing that is
evident on other 20th century houses and the late Victorian villas in the Conservation
Area. That scheme was for a larger dwelling and also included works to the whole
garden to the rear including substantial landstability and land drainage works. These
works included the cliff face and went up to the Site of Special Scientific Interest at the
base of the cliff.
8.3 It should be noted that in this case the site excludes substantial parts of the existing
garden of this property which are now under the control of the neighbouring property No
18. The development is therefore only around the existing large dwelling on this site and
as such the extent of consideration is somewhat different to that previous scheme.
8.4 Policy- The site is within the development boundary and is well located within the
existing fabric of the settlement and is not in an isolated location. Consequently
residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area may
be permitted provided the proposal conforms to other detailed policies in the Local Plan
such as general development and general design criteria in Policies D3 and B1 of the
adopted local plan, and Policy B8 concerning development in Conservation Areas.
However, as mentioned the NPPF, if the proposal does not achieve good design then it
is not sustainable development and so the ‘presumption in favour’ of the development
does not apply. There is also a need to identify and assess the particular significance of
any heritage asset and to come to a conclusion about the positive contribution that the
conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and the
desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness. There is support for avoiding the loss of buildings which make a positive
contribution, but in coming to a conclusion the advice is that the more important the
asset, the greater the weight that should be given.
8.5
The Council has now published information on its website confirming that it
cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. In the absence of a five year housing
land supply, the NPPF makes clear that “Housing applications should be considered in
the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development..” Para 14 of the
framework states that “…where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant
policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole;
or
•
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”
8.6 In this case the development plan (the adopted Local Plan) is out of date as it
sought to regulate development up and until 2011. As such there is a strong Policy
assumption that the development should be permitted on this issue alone. However
there are other issues that must be considered including the impact of the development
on the immediate character and appearance of the area and we must consider whether
these impacts outweigh the Housing Land Supply issue.
8.7 I have considered the concern about this proposal leading to other applications in
the vicinity causing overdevelopment; however I must advise that whilst there was a
time where a development density policy existed in this area, none exists today.
Therefore I must remind you of that it is important to consider each development
proposal on its individual merits.
8.8 Design and Conservation- Following the receipt of the scheme I drew the applicants
attention to the initial concerns from both the Design & Conservation Officer and the
Civic Society. As a result the applicants have revised the design and have put forward a
revised design approach which the Design & Conservation officer now considers to be
acceptable in this location. He has advised that whilst he understands that the house
was originally designed by an architect, it is not Listed in its own right. In his view, as it
faces the Conservation Area the building appears to be a rear elevation and appears to
have been added to in a very ad hoc way. For these reasons he does not think that the
existing building makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. Following on
from this he is of the opinion that a well developed building that reflects the style and
materials of the existing substantial buildings in the area would not look out of place and
therefore would be an acceptable development within the Conservation Area and would
preserve the locale. He suggests that national guidance on design in sensitive areas
looks favourably on innovative ideas and for this reason having a traditional designed
face to a building that fronts the roadside and changes materials and design cues as it
presents another aspect to the rear can be regarded as acceptable in this light. He does
however consider the transition between the two parts of the building is still rather
abrupt and the advantage that could be taken of the change of structure and materials
to create a truly different building that faces the rear garden may not have been fully
achieved. To his mind, further improvements could take more advantage of the division
between the two halves of the property when viewed from the garden. As the two halves
would be in separate ownership and the detailing of each half could reflect this
distinction.
Consequently you can see that he could not advise you to refused permission in terms
of the loss of the existing dwelling.
8.9 Clearly the loss of any historic building has the potential to impact on the character
of an area. The issue here is the relative merit of each building and whether the
proposed replacement is of sufficient merit. The demolition of the building could be
justified if the proposed replacement building can be said to enhance or preserve the
character of the Conservation Area (the Section 72 test as set out in the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). In this case the building does not
have listed status and your Design & Conservation Officer has no objection to the
historic approach adopted in the Belle Vue frontage, nor indeed the general more
modern approach to the side and rear. Indeed this was the general approach adopted at
No 18. His views relate to whether more individual diversity could be included in the
modern design elements to the side and rear. On this basis I could not advise refusal
on design and conservation grounds, subject to conditions and we consider the Section
72 test mentioned above to have been met.
8.10 Land stability- As mentioned the application site only includes the area at the top of
the cliff and does not include most of the existing significant rear garden area. The
proposed dwellings sit essentially on the footprint of the existing large dwelling and the
submitted landstability report has considered; geology, site investigations, the formation
of the coastal slope, the rate of coastal retreat, drainage, the Shoreline Management
Plan, Future Sea Level Rise, foundations and landscaping. It concluded that “The
proposed building will not adversely affect the stability of the area, nor will it, itself, be
adversely affected itself by ground instability.” I see no reason to dispute this conclusion
particualry as the NPPF states at para 120 that “Where a site is affected by
contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development
rests with the developer and/or landowner”
8.9 Highways- I note that there is no objection from the Highways Authority and I do not
consider that the introduction of additional traffic from the development would be
sufficient to justify a refusal of permission.
8.10 Trees/Nature conservation- The application is supported with a tree report, as well
as a Bat Report and Biodiversity Mitigation Plan.
8.11 The tree report concludes that the proposed development should have no
detrimental impact on the retained trees as long as the recommendations outlined in its
Arboricultural Method Statement are adhered to. It refers to the fact that the proposals
will result in the loss of 4 trees of low quality, but that this should not be seen to be of
significant importance in relation to the proposed development. I have discussed this
with your Senior Tree Officer and he is satisfied with the proposals subject to adherence
to the Arboricultural method statement by way of condition. Consequently, subject to
this condition I see no reason to resist this proposal on tree grounds subject to
conditions linking the development to the proposals in the tree report and to a new
landscaping scheme.
8.12 With regard to nature conservation, the biodiversity mitigation plan has been
agreed with Dorset County Council.
8.13 Amenity- In terms of the amenity of local residents, the existing dwelling is already
large and contains fenestration. The proposed plans include some windows to the sides
but reference is made to the use of fixed and obscured glazing, as well as the use of
1.5m side screens to the rear deck areas. Clearly the bungalow development to the rear
projects beyond the rear of both the existing/proposed dwellings at no 20. However I
could not advise that, subject to appropriate conditions, this scheme would result in any
significant increase in overlooking given; the orientation of the properties, the distance
involved and the greenery on the boundary. Consequently I could not advise that there
would be any serious loss of residential amenity in this case.
9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
9.1 Having considered the principle of demolishing the existing property and the impact
of this and the proposed designs on the Conservation Area, as well as the impact of
the proposal from a design, land stability, highway, tree protection, nature
conservation and residential amenity perspective, the scheme is considered
acceptable.
10. RECOMMENDATION
10.1 Grant permission
Subject to the following conditions1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2) PLAN1
(Approved Plans)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3) (Obscured Glazing)
The windows, openings and screens marked in yellow on the attached plan shall be
glazed with glass to a level of obscurity minimum 4 and fixing or method of opening to be
agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation and shall be
permanently maintained in that condition. No additional openings shall be formed in that
elevation.
Reason: To maintain the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring property, in
accordance with Policy D3 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005.
4) D20F (Materials Samples: Conservation Area)
Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local
Planning Authority, details and samples of all facing and roofing materials shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the
development shall be completed in accordance with these details.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is
sympathetic to its locality, which is designated as a Conservation Area, in accordance
with Policies B1 and B8 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005.
5) (Access Crossing)
Before the access is utilised the kerb and verge at the access crossing of the
highway shall be lowered and surfaced to a specification which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
6) The proposed development shall be completed in accordance with the
arboricultural method statement submitted with this application by Derek Brinsley
Limited dated 4th November 2014.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the locality, in
accordance with Policies B1, B2 and B8 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland
Local Plan 2005.
7) L20G (Protective Fencing)
The trees/hedges/shrubs] which are retained in accordance with the approved
plans and particulars shall be protected by fencing in accordance with British
Standard 5837 before any ground clearance works, equipment, machinery or
materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and this
fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials
have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area
fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas
shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written
consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the locality, in
accordance with Policies B1, B2 and B8 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland
Local Plan 2005.
8) L35F (Boundary Treatment)
Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the
Local Planning Authority, a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and
type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed before the
buildings are occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and the privacy of the
occupiers of adjoining premises, in accordance with Policies D3 and B1 of the
adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005.
9) L54A (Landscaping: Minor)
Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the
Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard
and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the
development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance
the visual amenities of the locality, and is a requirement of the Local Planning
Authority in accordance with Policy B1 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland
Local Plan 2005.
11. BACKGROUND PAPERS
11.1 Ref WP/12/00166/FUL and WP/14/00972/FUL