Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing 2-bedroom detached bungalow and erection of a two storey purpose-built flat development to include 2 no. 1-Bed, 1 no. 2-Bed and 1 no. 3-Bed self-contained units with associated facilities including parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and private amenity.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing 2-bedroom detached bungalow and erection of a two storey purpose-built flat development to include 2 no. 1-Bed, 1 no. 2-Bed and 1 no. 3-Bed self-contained units with associated facilities including parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and private amenity.

Officers presented the application which was recommended for refusal. Reasons cited included its scale, size and siting. It was felt that the development would harm the visual amenity and character of the area and the residential amenities of neighbours. It would also fail to provide future occupiers with high quality amenity space.

A petition in objection to the scheme had been received and the lead petitioner addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The petitioner lived in Ashley Close and his bungalow bordered the side elevation of the site hence he would be severely impacted by the development;

·         The current property at 10 Oakwood was in keeping with other buildings in the area – a large, detached family home;

·         The development would be a blow to the peace and quiet of Ashley Close;

·         The petition had 28 signatories; Northwood Hills Residents’ Association had also objected to the proposal;

·         It was noted that Highways had raised no concerns regarding additional parking – this seemed unreasonable as there could be up to 14 cars at the site and only 5 parking spaces provided;

·         Commuters parking along the road could potentially hamper the passage of emergency vehicles. There would also be a risk to pedestrians and an increase in noise and pollution;

·         The development would not be in keeping with the area and would be inappropriate and overbearing;

·         There would be a loss of light and privacy to the nearest neighbour.

Members commented that the proposed development was excessively large and would harm the residential amenity of no.12.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.