BCP Council’s Planning Committee met on 27 June. Here are a few of the biggest applications currently under consideration.
9 Castle Road, Bournemouth (Winton East Ward)
Outline submission for 27 dwellinghouses and a four-storey block of 14 flats, bin and cycle stores are included in the flats. Submission also includes creation of parking and vehicular access.
It was referred to the Planning Committee due to receiving more than 10 letters of objection before 1 April 2019.
Recommendation: Delegate to Head of Planning to secure an s106 agreement* and then grant the application.
Issues that have been raised by residents include congestion on surrounding roads – including Denmark Road and Castle Road – and parking problems, given that fewer parking spaces than units have been allocated. Amongst the comments there is little objection to the houses with the height of the flats being the primary issue.
*Private agreements between the authority and developers outlining condition(s) that the developer must fulfil in order to have the application granted.
6/8 Cardigan Road, Bournemouth (Winton East Ward)
Erection of a three-storey building comprising of ground floor Class A2 professional office spaces and 16 flats with bin and cycle stores. There is to be formation of car parking spaces.
Recommended: Grant. It is viewed as similar to an allowed appeal application from 2014.
It has been sent before the Planning Committee due to Councillor Pat Oakley citing the follow objections:
- Sub-standard accommodation
- Unsustainable development
- Contrary to local demand
Two local residents objected to the proposal, stating that the parking allocation is inadequate – and will make the current bad situation worse – and that there is worry that they will be used for student let, hence increasing the already high student population in the area.
Bournemouth Civic Society wrote in support of the proposal saying: “We think the accommodation is conveniently placed for easy access to both the Lansdowne and Wallisdown Campuses of Bournemouth and the fear of excessive car parking demands should be offset by the ease of established bus transport and bicycle provision.”
6 Clarendon Road, Bournemouth (Westbourne & Strouden Park Ward)
Outline submission for demolition of existing building and subsequent erection of a block of eight flats, cycle and bin stores. There will be formation of vehicular access and parking.
Recommended: Refuse. Failed to address the reasons for failure of the previous application:
- Loss of original building is considered harmful
- Proposed development is too big and unsympathetic
- Loss of trees and landscaping damages historic area
- Failure to preserve or enhance the West Cliff and Poole Hill Conservation Area
Was brought before Planning Committee due to (former) Councillor Stollard’s objections:
- Disagreement that the existing building should remain as it stands
- Planned application would enhance area and provide eight quality accommodation units
- Retention of trees and a new wall would enhance the appearance of the road
The consensus amongst residents is that the development is an over-development of an historic area – 4 Clarendon Road was converted to five flats, rather than eight. Further to this, the design is not in-keeping with the current road, with it being higher than the others. The destruction of trees is also a worry, with residents citing both environmental and visual concerns.
36/36a Southbourne Road, Bournemouth (Boscombe East & Pokesdown Ward)
Erection of two blocks of four flats (eight in total), two storeys in height with access, parking and bin stores.
Recommended: Grant subject to s106 agreement and its conditions.
Councillor Andy Jones objected to the plan, stating:
- Will make a blind junction located on the road more dangerous due to increase in traffic
- Impinges upon the privacy of neighbours
- Out of character with the local area
Inadequate road provision was amongst the most popular objections, for reasons from the blind junction to poor parking allocation.
Policy 6.8 of the District Wide Local Plan was quoted by one complainant as having been broken by the application, saying that the plan negatively impacts his privacy as a direct neighbour to the proposal.