Issue - meetings

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit and to request a further daylight / sunlight review.

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that some additional objections had been received in respect of the application, but no new concerns had been raised.

Members heard that the large oak tree to the rear of the site was protected by a TPO. There was a mix of housing along Parkfield Road and quite a few replacement buildings including numbers 29, 54 and 55; the principle of replacement dwellings was therefore acceptable. The height and scale of the proposed development was similar to that at number 29. On balance, it was considered that the proposed design of the development would not cause harm to the overall character of the area or to the amenity of the neighbours. The application was recommended for approval.

Two petitions had been submitted in objection to the application. The Chair noted that, on this occasion, both petitioners would be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each due to some late notification to one of the petitioners regarding the meeting. However, the Chair usually exercised his discretion where there were multiple petitions on the same application and reserved his right to reduce the speaking times.

The lead petitioner for the first petition was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·       The new owners had purchased no. 39 Parkfield Road a year previously but had never actually lived at the property. Strangers used the property and came and went at random – it was essentially already an HMO;

·       It appeared that the property had been purchased as a commercial investment only rather than to be used as a family home;

·       No. 39 was located between four bungalows with five bungalows opposite and the proposal was not in keeping with the street scene;

·       The documents and plans submitted by the applicant were inaccurate;

·       Proposed off-street parking provision would be inadequate;

·       Planning officers had stated that the proposal complied with BRE guidelines. The consultant had chosen sections which benefited the applicant but the BRE should be considered in its entirety;

·       The findings of the daylight / sunlight report were disputed as they vastly underestimated the impact of the construction and the light remaining thereafter. The application site was surrounded by elderly neighbours who needed more light. All windows at no. 41 should be included in the calculations;

·       The drawings were inaccurate. The Council should at least independently verify the calculations taking into account all loss of light to all windows and rooms;

·       It would not be possible to construct the building as planned – the roof ridge would need to be extended or the velux windows lowered;

·       Hidden heights had not been allowed for and would increase the height indicated in the diagrams. The diagrams had been prepared with a lack of care and attention and included inaccuracies e.g. no. 43 had not been drawn to scale;

·       Petitioners requested refusal of the application or deferral  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65