Agenda item

Conversion of existing dwelling to 1 one-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space (Retrospective application)

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of existing dwelling to 1 one-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space (Retrospective application)

A representative of a petition received in objection to the application addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

• Urged that this retrospective planning application should be refused
• The Parking issue was a concern for residents of Selan Gardens and Raleigh Avenue
•  The development infringed on private property.
• Residents were installing a security gate to seal off access way
• Opening up the access way would lead to the loss of security for surrounding properties
•  Opposed to parking in back gardens.
• Trees had been removed
• Concerned about the loss of privacy for Residents in Raleigh Gardens
• If application was granted, the breach of security would impact greatly on an 80 year old resident who had installed security system to her home
• Storage in the middle of the garden, seriously impacted on No 12, as it extended to the boundary of No 12, with a detrimental effect on the attractiveness of the house
• Concerned about compliancy (following advice from a gas engineer) of flues to right at the back door of residents (the Council had been contacted about this issue)
• Urged the Committee to refuse the application

In response to a query about access, the petitioner advised that only  residents of Selan Gardens had access to the rear, which was on private land.  Access was not closed off and there was no rear access for residents of Raleigh Gardens.

The applicant circulated photographs to Members and spoke about the application raising the following points:

·        In respect of privacy, security and safety concerns, access to back gardens was acceptable in the UK, which therefore amounted to no extra ordinary request

·        The alley way was 6m wide, which met more than the required standards at the back of Raleigh Avenue and Selan Gardens

·        People could go in and out of their garages safely and securely

·        The back garden of the application site was 6m x 6.5m which allowed for enough parking spaces in the back

·        Had allocated additional space to provide a turning point

·        The alley way was not a private property and residents had their own garages

·        Other residents used the same rear access to access their properties

·        Some residents had blocked the alley way by dumping rubbish of at least 3m wide

·        Some garages had been converted into bedrooms; others had been converted into out-buildings.

·        Deserved the same rights as other members of the community

In answer to a question as to whether there was a legal agreement for the use of the alley way, the applicant advised that he was not aware of any. Although he did not yet have a legal agreement for the use of the road, the applicant advised that he will be able to provide such an agreement.

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• Supported the petitioners in their objection to the application.
• That the development was for commercial gain.
• No one should be confined to less than the habitable required standard of space
• Concerned about the issue of parking and the potential problem of the use of the service road
• Concerned about potential anti-social behaviour and unauthorised access
•   Concerned that the conversion had already been competed without planning permission
• Suggested that if the officer’s recommendation was agreed, that enforcement action should be taken

For clarification officers advised that car parking spaces at the rear of the development was acceptable by the Council and manoeuvrability was not an issue. The issue was the right of way which appeared only to be available to the residents of Selan Gardens.

Members noted that no vehicle would be able to manoeuvre in the parking spaces at the front of the development, as shown on the plans.

The recommendation for refusal was proposed, seconded and on being put to the vote was refused, subject to the amendments in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

Resolved – that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, subject to the amendments in the Addendum.