Meeting documents

Key to the following decisions:

ADV - Consent to Display Adverts; ARM - Approval of Reserved Matters; CI - Certificate of Lawfulness Issued; CON - Conservation Area Consent; D - Deferred; D (INF) - Deferred for Further Information; D (SV) - Deferred for Site Visits; D (PO) - Deferred for Planning Obligation; D (NEG) - Deferred for Negotia­tions; FCG - Consent for Tree Work; PCR TPO Part Consent/Part Refusal; LBC - Listed Building Consent; OP - Outline Planning Permission;  P - Application Permitted; R - Refused or Rejected;  R (AO) – Refused against Officer recommendation;  RC - Removal of Condition;  TC - Temporary Consent; TP - Temporary Permission;  ULBC - Unconditional Listed Building Consent;  UP - Unconditional Permission;  VG - Variation Granted;  W - Application Withdrawn.

Decision

Plan Number:

PL/19/1348/FA

R (AO)

Applicant:

Lotus Housing

Proposal:

Change of use to supporting living facility (Use Class C2) – retrospective. Alterations to rear elevation to allow for changes from a window to a door at 6 Fairfield Lane, Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire, SL2 3BX.

Notes:

·         A site visit was undertaken by members

·         Officers clarified that the floorplan was incorrect as the communal living space was actually used as staff office and accommodation.

·         It was confirmed that there would be staff living on site when completing a 24 hour shift.

·         Speaking on behalf of the objectors, Mr Philip Norvill.

·         Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the agent, Mr Thomas Rumble.

·         Speakingas Local Member, Councillor Dev Dhillon.

Councillor D Anthony proposed that the Committee refuse the application due to the detrimental impact it would have on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings, and the inadequate and substandard level of amenity for occupiers of the development by virtue of the poor layout and configuration of the accommodation, and the lack of communal cooking and other facilities. The site is not conveniently located for shops and services, and therefore those facilities are not easily accessible for the occupants in view of their disabilities. This proposal was seconded by Councillor T Egleton and agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:

The NPPF sets out in Section 12 that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Development should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, and where crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. The use, by virtue of its more intensive nature is giving rise to a greater and more noticeable level of noise, activity and general disturbance, than that expected to be generated by a single dwelling house in a quiet suburban location such as this. The use is therefore having and would continue to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings and an adverse impact on the general residential amenities of the locality, and its character and appearance. Further to this the property provides an inadequate and substandard level of accommodation by virtue of the poor layout and figuration of the accommodation which is inappropriate for its intended use and the number of occupants, including inadequately sized rooms, small garden area, limited cooking facilities, size and design of the bathroom facilities, use of communal areas to access private areas, and the overall quality of the premises themselves. In addition, the site is not conveniently located for shops and services, and therefore those facilities are not easily accessible for the occupants. As such, an unacceptable level of residential amenity and quality of life is provided for the current and future occupants of the premises. Overall, the proposal would result in a poor design that fails to create better places for people to live. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies EP3 and H6 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999), as well as Core Policy 7 of the South Bucks District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2011), and the NPPF.

(B)       COMMITTEE DECISION REQUIRED WITHOUT A SITE VISIT OR PUBLIC SPEAKING:-