Agenda item

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace to include associated parking, amenity space, bin and cycle store.

Recommendation : Refusal.

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace to include associated parking, amenity space, bin and cycle store.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

The application related to an area of land to the rear and forming part of No. 147 Cornwall Road and sought permission for the erection of a two storey 3 bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.  The application site was located within a residential street within the developed area.  The site was not located within any designated areas.  The trees on the site were not subject to preservation orders.

Members noted that the main issues with respect to the proposal were the loss of garden land, the appearance of the development within the street scene and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

In respect of the garden land the proposal would be located on the rear garden of No 146 Cornwall Road and as such the land did not constitute brown field land.  The openness of the road in this location would be significantly affected by the loss of this garden and the proposal would therefore be inappropriate and detrimental to the character of the area.

The proposed development would be located only 12m from the facing wall of the property at No 14 Cornwall Road, as such it would have an over dominant and overbearing impact to the amenity of these occupiers.  Members noted that the proposal would be detrimental to neighbouring properties and would unacceptably reduce levels of privacy.

Members noted that concerns relating to parking have arisen from the public consultation, but the proposal would provide adequate car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards and accordingly the development was considered acceptable in this respect.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposals addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         Was representing the lead petitioner.

·         Residents were not happy that another application had been submitted.

·         Rosebury Vale was one of the premier roads in the local area.

·         There were a high number of elderly residents who lived in the area.

·         Residents did not understand why the proposal would have a Cornwall Road address when it sat on Rosebury Vale.

·         The character of the road would not change.

·         There would be a direct visual impact.

·         The living conditions for new residents would not be practical.

·         The area would be over developed.

·         Resident's house prices would be diluted.

·         Only the applicant would benefit from the proposals financially.

The Chairman highlighted that the local Ward Councillors for this area had strongly objected to the proposals and supported petitioners' concerns.

Members agreed that application constituted as blatant garden grabbing.  Members also noted that there was inaccuracies in the officers report and requested these be rectified should the application go to appeal.  Officers explained that section 3.2 of the officer's report stated that the 2^nd bedroom would be located in the roof space.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be refused as per the officers' report.