Agenda item

Two-storey, 5 bedroom detached dwelling with habitable roof-space involving demolition of existing dwelling, (Re-consultation on additional information relating to tree protection, internal layouts and additional obscure glazing in the rear elevation).

In introducing the report, officers explained that the applicant had engaged proactively to address issues from previously withdrawn scheme. All windows were obscured and elevation facing 3 Copse Wood could be closed shut to address issues relating to overlooking. It was noted that the development was solely sited to the north of adjoining properties and therefore would not cause any overlooking to adjoining properties. Officers directed Members to note the changes in the addendum circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners and the applicant were invited to address the meeting. The petition representative raised the following points in objection to the proposal:

·         This was the third petition that had been raised from a large section of the Copse Wood estate

·         The opposition had been sustained with 69 people signing the current  petition against the proposed development

·         This scheme would be too big for the plot and the roof would be too high

·         The proposed development would destroy the symmetry of the area

·         The site was covered by Tree Preservation Order and residents did not feel that adequate arrangements would be made for their protection and long term retention

·          Cutting the trees structure would increase the severity of extreme weather

·         Questioned why the building foundation was sited in close proximity of the oak trees, which were over 100 years old

·         The scheme would be against policy, as features of the development would not be sympathetic with adjoining properties and would be out of character and appearance of the area

·         The privacy of residents at 3 Copse Wood Way would be lost  (Condition BE24 imposed to protect) but windows could easily be replaced

·         The proposal would destroy the symmetry of the area, which was defined by the 2 gate houses marked by the gate leading to Copse Wood estate

·         The close proximity and size of the windows would have a detrimental effect on the future development potential of 3 Copse Wood Way

·         Urged the Committee to reject the application.

The applicant raised the following points:

·         Planning officers covered all objections 18 months ago

·         Had moved from building a dream home to converting a home which was old, cold and draughty with very high utility bills

·         Had made many mistakes in previous applications and now working with officers to address previous concerns

·         Had changed whatever had been asked of him, met all requirements and even more

·         The current proposal was within policy

·         At the side of No. 3 Copse Wood Way, 1 window was glazed and the other was closed

·         Felt that they were entitled to make their home comfortable

·         Thanked officers for all the guidance that had been received in putting this proposal forward

·         Urged the Committee to approve the application.

It was noted that a Ward Councillor had sent his objection to the proposed development.

With regard to a query raised about the bulk and height of the scheme, officers' view was that the bulk and height of the building was acceptable, as this was a two-storey building with accommodation in the roof-space. The massing was not particularly greater than other properties in the area.

Officers explained that the slot D elevation always made the building look bigger, due to a kink. The proposed building would have traditional chimney and roof form but in terms of height, there was large variation on the estate. Consequently, Members were advised not to judge on just the 2 properties but to look at the whole of the street scene, which varied.

In response to a query raised about symmetry, officers advised that the privacy policy related to overlooking between habitable windows, and in regard to the angular relationship, which could be obscure glazed and non-opening. It was explained that this could be secured by condition if required and should any enforcement issue arise, action could be taken. 

The Committee raised an issue regarding damage to tree root; officers explained that an arboriculture report with full details of how trees would be protected during the construction work had been provided and the Tree Officer was satisfied that the trees with Tree Protection Order (TPO) would be retained.

A Member expressed concerns that 2 rooms had been proposed in the roof-space; a games room and a cinema room which could easily be used as two bedrooms and asked why the application hadn't been shown as 7 bedrooms. Officers advised that in terms of assessing planning obligations, officers assessed only habitable rooms that could be used as a potential bedroom and in this case, would not have a harmful impact as dual rooms.

A Member added that there was a need for the design to fit the context and to this end therefore, the application should be deferred for a site visit.

In answer to a query about the orientation of the proposed building, officers advised that it had been concluded in the report that the 45 degree rule had not been breached (in ensuring the amenity of the adjoining occupiers were protected) and would therefore not be an issue that would justify a refusal.

Officers added however, that this was just outside the 45 degree line.

A Member added that this was a relatively small building and would like to visit the site to ensure a clearer picture of the development proposed on the site.

It was moved, second and agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be deferred for Members to visit the site.