Two new dwellings at 6 Ormesby Crescent, Felpham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the garage and conservatory, extending and altering the bungalow, creating two dwellings and adding a highway crossover.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONDivision of property to form two separate dwellings, side and rear extensions and alterations to bungalow. New crossover onto the public highway. SITE CHARACTERISTICSDetached bungalow with detached garage. Open frontage and a garden to rear. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYResidential area, with an open character and mix of bungalows, chalet bungalows and two storey dwellings.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would comply with relevant policies and would not harm the area or existing and future occupiers.

“The proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies in that the proposal provides an additional dwelling within the built up area, and would not harm the character of the area.”

“The proposal involves the demolition of the single storey garage and conservatory, their replacement with a pitched roof side extension and a rear extension with crown roof. The side extension would have a width of 2.5m. The side extension is designed to extend the existing pitched roofed form, and would be constructed with matching materials. The extension would be visually integrated with the building, and complies with ALP policies D DM1 and D DM4.”

Officer report

Living conditions and parking

Both homes would exceed internal space standards, provide sufficient parking under the local standard and retain acceptable amenity despite some garden and neighbour impacts.

“INTERNAL SPACE STANDARDS AND AMENITY OF FUTURE OCCUPIERS ALP policy D DM2 requires internal spaces in dwellings to be an appropriate size. The Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) require bedrooms with two bed spaces to have an area of 11.5sqm. On this basis, Unit A is a 2-bed dwelling with 3 bed spaces, and exceeds the overall internal space standard of 61sqm for a dwelling of this size, with an area of 73sqm.”

“The consultation response states that the proposals would result in a shortfall of a single parking space. Whilst WSCC state that Unit B would require 3 parking spaces, the Arun Parking Standards SPD (APS) would require 2 parking spaces for each dwelling, and the proposals comply with this requirement. The proposals provide sufficient on-site parking in accordance with the APS.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected, highways found no safety concern, environmental health had no objection and ecology required biodiversity information and off-site units.

“No representations were received from nearby occupiers. COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Comments noted. CONSULTATIONS CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED: WSCC HIGHWAYS - Advice - The proposed crossover raises no safety concerns in this location. - WSCC parking demand calculator expects 3 parking spaces for the 3-bed dwelling, so there may be need for one overspill space to be accommodated on-street. This would not cause a highways concern.”

“ECOLOGY - Further information required - Further information should be provided regarding the trees within the BNG baseline. - The BNG assessment shows a loss of 53.33% in habitat units. Offsite units would therefore be required in order to meet the BNG requirement. FP/55/26/PL”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no public speakers, and the senior planning officer presented the application and its assessment.

What members debated

A member acknowledged the parish council’s concerns and the significant development but considered there were no sustainable planning reasons to refuse.

“Debate was invited and one Member acknowledged the concerns raised by Felpham Parish Council and noted that the proposal represented a significant level of development on the site. However, it was recognised that there were no sustainable planning reasons that would justify refusal of the application.”

“As there were no further comments made, the Chair moved to the vote.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved conditionally, subject to approval at the next Planning Committee meeting.

“Subject to approval at the next Planning Committee meeting…”

“That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.”

Minutes