Agenda item

Conversion of existing bungalow to a two, 2 bedroom semi-detached bungalows involving alterations/extensions to existing dwelling.

Conversion of existing bungalow to two x 2 bedroom semi-detached bungalows involving alterations/extensions to existing dwelling.

33165/APP/2010/1011

Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the existing bungalow to provide a pair of semi-detached bungalows. The officer report stated that the proposal would maximise the use of the land for residential purposes and would provide adequate amenities of future occupiers. That the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and would not harm the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Mrs Hilary Fuller stated that she spoke on behalf of those that lived around the area who wished to object to the planning application.
• She stated that the planning application did not comply with several regulations. That only 1 detached property could be built on the site.
• That the application was not in keeping with the existing bungalows and street scene. That it would not blend in and it would change the character of the area.
• That the owner at no.35 was concerned about knocking down the boundary which was 1-metre from her property and the effect it would have had on her property.
• That the feature of the bungalows in the area was the difference between them. It was distinguishing and the proposed development would detract from the attractive street scene. 

Points raised by the applicant:

• Mr Jim Biek stated that the planning application was made with extensive consultation on 3 occasions with officers.
• The proposal was for the existing occupier and his parents.
• The principle of sub-division was deemed acceptable by planning officers.
• The property on the road were very diverse so the proposal would of fitted in with the existing street scene.
• That the development would of maintained the building which was in a bad condition.
• There was no existing passage that passes through other houses.

Ward Councillors John Riley, Philip Corthorne and Brian Crowe addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Councillor Riley stated that Howletts Lane was a particular type of road, with beauteous properties. Many of which were detached bungalows.
• This proposal did not form any side access and that access to the back of the property was virtually impossible for any large objects.
• That parking would be restricted and this would have had a knock-on effect.
• That all the properties on the street were detached and a semi-detached property would be out of character.
• Councillor Riley supported Mrs Fuller and the residents who petitioned against this application and asked for the Committee to refuse the application. That if they did approve it they should consider additional conditions to the application.
• Councillor Corthorne supported the petitioners and endorsed the views already expressed.
• He felt that officers had not fully considered the area, street scene and boundary.
• He was disappointed that his own objections were not recorded in the report, and he supported the objections of the residents and ward councillors.
• Councillor Brian Crowe agreed largely with what had already been said.
• He wished to emphasis the points on parking, narrowness of the roads, refuse/bins, the terrace appearance and very open nature of the road.

Members sought further clarification on the legal matters regarding a restricted covernance. The Legal Officer advised that this was an enforcement matter between land owners and not material for planning committee considerations.

Members questioned officers on highways issues, on the natural light and they were concerned with the amount of information they had to base their decision on.

The Chairman advised the petitioners that if they wished to submit a petition against the new plan then it would have to be a fresh petition. 

Resolved –

Deferred due to insufficient information.  The Committee requested further info on:

1. Highway crossover;

2. Light study to demonstrate that requirements are met in bedroom 2 of both units;

3. Light study to demonstrate that requirements are met in the kitchen;

4. Shadowing diagrams required for the bed 2s;

5. How ladders can be taken through the house.

6. How will Code 3 will be met.