Issue - meetings

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend the reasons for refusal to reflect the changes in the revised ground floor plan including concerns regarding upper floor resident access to the rear garden; and

2.    That the application be refused.

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. It was noted that the agent had submitted a revised ground floor plan 24 hours in advance of the meeting. The Council was not obliged to consider this revised drawing at this late stage but had opted to do so since it was likely, if the application were to be refused and an appeal lodged, that the drawing would be submitted at that time; it was therefore deemed sensible to have regard to it within the meeting. Members were informed that the agent had attempted to overcome the reasons for refusal by omitting the footpath in the revised plan. However, officers felt this had not addressed overlooking concerns satisfactorily as cars would still be parked in close proximity to ground floor habitable windows. Moreover, the revised plan created an additional issue for residents on the upper floor as access to their rear garden would be impractical. It was noted that the Chairman had decided to allow the revised plan to be considered on this occasion since it did not change the building itself – only the outer area.

A written representation in objection to the proposal was read out to the Committee on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·       Beech Avenue was currently a quiet friendly street. The petition had been signed by 63 local residents who vehemently objected to the proposed development. Many of these residents had lived on the street for many years;

·       The proposed flats were not in keeping with properties in the immediate vicinity which were family homes. There was a worrying trend whereby bungalows were being knocked down to be replaced with huge developments, thus ruining the street scene;

·       The development would result in an unacceptably high density of people for the building. This would lead to an increase in noise and waste pollution and would create additional parking stress. The proposed car park would also lead to a significant increase in air and noise pollution to surrounding properties;

·       The proposed development would be 2.5 storeys high, hence would result in a loss of privacy to surrounding properties.

A written representation (accompanied by an updated ground floor plan) was read out to the Committee on behalf of the agent. In response to proposed reason for refusal 1, Members heard that, as set out in the proposed revised plan, at the front of the windows to the bedroom of Flat 1 and the living room of Flat 2, a buffer at least 1.5 metres wide with 1.2 metre high hedges or similar and with a flower bed and shrubs would be created to ensure an adequate visual and physical barrier. This buffer would prohibit future residents from passing in front of these habitable windows thus safeguarding the privacy of the ground floor flats. Additionally, car parking bays P1 and P2 would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23