Agenda item

2 x two storey, 2-bed semi detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

2 x two storey, 2-bed semi detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space

This proposal was to develop the side and rear garden of a ground floor maisonette to provide a pair of semi-detached two-bedroom houses on a corner plot and follows a refusal of planning permission (reference 67335/APP/2010/2355) for a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a linked one bedroom bungalow.

The impact of proposed dwellings upon the character and appearance of the area and the impact upon residential amenity was considered acceptable. The scheme failed to include details of the off-site highway works required to remove the bollards and associated footway construction, which was required to enable access to the parking. However the applicant had offered to deal with this matter by way of a S106 agreement which was considered acceptable in this instance. As such the application was recommended for approval.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Ms Caroline Wood spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

-          Ms Wood lived at no. 30A and owned the property outright as a leaseholder.

-          It was stated that the site allocated for parking was not as allocated in the plans provided.

-          The space allocated for parking was not big enough and the 4 spaces would go into the garden area.

-          The removal of the bollards would make the area a lot less safe for children who play in the area.

-          The residents of no. 30 would have their garden reduced by more than 50%.

-          There were mature trees on the site that needed to be protected.

-          Berries were in the site and would be removed; this was food for insects.

-          In addition there was a lot of insects and wildlife that would be destroyed if the application was approved.

-          The application will affect the entrance stairs at no. 30A.

-          There was currently an unrestricted view from outside no 30A and the application would result in 3.5m gap and then a brick wall. This will cause a considerable loss of light.

-          It was the opinion of local residents that the application would not enhance the area.

-          It was a cramped area.

-          The petitioners questioned the need of the proposed development.

-          Petitioners asked the Committee to consider the location and that the development would be isolated.

-          Asked Committee to note that there was a much bigger demand for parking in the area than previously.

The agent/applicant was not present.

A Ward Councillor was present and addressed Committee:

-          The Ward Councillor said that the application stated it was on land and part of the garden of no. 30. This was inaccurate and the proposed development would be on all garden and not on land.

-          The plans did not clearly show that it would be adjacent to maisonettes.

-          Although there was space between the existing maisonettes and a proposal was acceptable – this proposal would go very much against the street scene.

-          The area was suitable for one house and not two.

-          There were concerns with the access.

-          The Ward Councillor was concerned that the mature trees could be lost.

-          It was felt this was a case of garden grabbing.

Members and officers discussed the plans presented to them and the access to the properties. Members also asked for clarification on the existing parking area. Officers explained that there was currently no existing parking area and this would be new.

Ownership of the land was discussed. Officers stated that any development outside of the owned land would need to be negotiated with the owners.

Members proposed a site visit would be beneficial before a decision could be made as they wished for more clarification on the car park spaces, on the impact of removing the bollards and on the plans submitted to them.

The recommendation for deferral was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be deferred in order than Members could carry out a site visit.