Agenda item

PD/19/05 Item 3 - Application IP/19/00467/FUL

24 Ransome Road

Minutes:

REPS

Ward:             PRIORY HEATH

 

Proposal:      Erection of detached single-storey dwelling on land severed from rear garden.

 

Address:       24 Ransome Road

 

Applicant:     Ms Diane Davis

 

Agent:            Mr Jamie Kelly

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report illustrated by drawings and photographs.  A site visit was undertaken by Members of the Committee on 19 August 2019.

 

RESOLVED:-

 

To Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

 

1.            Policy DM5 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review (2017) requires all development to be well designed and sustainable with a specific requirement for development to function well and where possible integrate with adjoining areas, exhibit good architectural quality whilst protecting and enhancing the special character and distinctiveness of the town and the street scene. With regard to design and layout, policy DM13 requires infill developments to establish a safe and secure environment, protect the setting of existing buildings and the character and appearance of the area.

 

The proposal would have a separation of only 5.1 metres between the east elevation of the proposed dwelling and the boundary of the site with the retained garden of 24 Ransome Road, with only 12.7 metres to the rear facing windows of the same property. This elevation of the proposed dwelling would include the principal entrance door and a patio door serving the main living area. Furthermore, there would only be 0.5 metres between the proposed dwelling and the north boundary of the site with 22 Ransome Road. Consequently, the dwelling would appear very cramped having regard to the boundaries of the site and existing dwellings.

 

The proposed dwelling would be traditional in terms of its architectural appearance, constructed using bricks and clay tiles. However, the proposed dwelling’s overall layout and form would not be traditional, with a principal entrance door on the dwelling’s eastern side elevation and limited separation to neighbouring properties as outlined above. The resultant development would be a noticeable addition to the street and would sit awkwardly within the context of surrounding development and the street scene which has more spacious and regular separation between properties.

 

Consequently, the proposal would fail to exhibit good architectural quality and would fail to protect and enhance the character of the street scene. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to protect the setting of existing buildings and the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would fail to be in accordance with policies DM5 and DM13.

 

2.            Policy DM30 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review (2017) requires developers to meet floorspace standards within the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard unless it can be demonstrated that it would not be viable. The proposal dwelling would be significantly below the required floorspace standard set within the standardsand the applicant has not made a case with regard to viability.

 

Furthermore, the limited spacing to neighbouring dwellings and the boundaries of the site would also affect the amenity standards of the dwelling which would represent a cramped form of development that would be limited in terms of its layout and outlook, with limited aspect and general space provision around the dwelling.

 

Consequently, the proposal would fail to provide a good standard of amenity for the residents of the proposed dwelling and the proposal would fail to provide adequate internal floorspace in accordance with policy DM30 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review (2017).

 

3.            The Local Planning Authority is not currently able to demonstrate that it has an adequate five-year supply of land for housing and that housing applications must be assessed in terms of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). In this case it is considered that the harmful effects of the development demonstrably outweigh the benefit of the delivery of a single dwelling.

 

The proposal would be contrary to the aforementioned policies of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD (2017) and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Supporting documents: