Reference number: 15/503232
Representations have been received from the owners of 23 Eyhorne Street raising concerns over the following:
1. Contradictions made in terms of excavation work and proposed ceiling height
3. Highway safety and Windmill PH parking not available for use
4. Conservation Officer not visiting site
5. Impact of proposal on listed buildings
6. Residential amenity
8. Applicant not having meeting with local residents
9. Demolition of building will be required and so wrong application has been submitted
POINTS 1 & 2
Agent has further clarified that:
- Concrete floor removed and taken of site in rubble sacks either by hand or in small dumper
- New concrete slab will be mixed internally and estimated to take 2hr-3hr to finish
- By removing loose hard-core material existing floor to ceiling height will be approx. 2.32m.
- Ground floor flat will connect to existing soil stack and run-off to existing manhole; and there will be no change to existing surface water discharge and disposal and there will be no soakaway.
- As set out in original committee report, proposal has been considered on basis that there is no available resident parking at Windmill PH; and to reiterate Highways Authority have not raised an objection on level of parking provision. Furthermore, on review of construction method details, Highways Officer comments;
“Applicant has provided clarification regarding arrangements for construction. This has confirmed that construction will be undertaken without need for large vehicles to enter site and dedicated off-site parking will be made available for construction personnel. Position of Highway Authority is unchanged in that there are no sustainable grounds on which to raise objection to this application.”
POINTS 4 & 5
- Conservation Officer confirms that he has visited site and has received no request to meet on site to discuss application with Parish Council or local residents.
- I am satisfied that local planning authority has carried out its duties under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which are to consider impact on setting of listed buildings and conservation areas of completed development. I am also in agreement with Conservation Officer when he comments that considerations under the Act cannot extend to theoretical damage to buildings which might ensue from construction work.
POINTS 6, 7, 8 & 9
- Issues of residential amenity and noise have been dealt with in original committee report.
- There are public open spaces within walking distance of site for future occupants to use.
- Whether applicant has meeting with local residents or not regarding this proposal is not reason to delay determination of this planning application. Consideration can only be given to planning merits of proposal put forward and not what potentially could happen; and applicant would have to submit a new application if this was the case.
I am satisfied that the issues raised in the one neighbour representation have been adequately addressed and continue to consider the proposal to not cause adverse harm in terms of its impact upon highway safety and parking provision, residential amenity, construction methods, and heritage.
My recommendation remains unchanged.