Agenda item

Single storey side extension to ground floor shop, conversion of first and second floors from 2 residential units to 1 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed flats, provision of amenity area first floor level and installation of external metal staircase at first floor level to the rear. Two storey detached building at the rear of the site to provide 2 x 1 bed flats, provision of amenity area at ground floor level and provision of 9 car parking spaces at the front of the site involving increase in width of existing crossovers

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey side extension to ground floor shop, conversion of first and second floors from 2 residential units to 1 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed flats, provision of amenity area first floor level and installation of external metal staircase at first floor level to the rear. Two storey detached building at the rear of the site to provide 2 x 1 bed flats, provision of amenity area at ground floor level and provision of 9 car parking spaces at the front of the site involving increase in width of existing crossovers

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.  The Committee was informed that a Ward Councillor had asked for his views about the application to be given to the Committee as he was unable to attend the meeting.

Ward Councillor comments included concerns about highway and pedestrian safety, Ryefield Avenue was on a main bus route through the estate, the proposal was overdevelopment and cars often double parked outside the shops.

In accordance with the Council's Constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting and the applicant/agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         The main objection to the proposal was in relation to parking and traffic that already existed in the local area.

·         The two storey building within in the rear yard would not match the existing building line.

·         The development would be out of character with the area.

·         Ryefield Avenue was a wide road and on a main bus route, cars double park outside of the shops causing pedestrian and highway safety concerns.

·         If this application was approved there were concerns that parking in Berkley Road would be exacerbated, which had already been raised with officers.

The applicant/agent made the following points:-

·         Several aspects needed to be considered and the application considered on its own merits.

·         There had been no objections or concerns raised in relation to residential flats above 132 Ryefield Avenue.

·         The required amenity space, refuse and cycle storage had been provided.

·         The access was not significantly different to existing arrangements.

·         The additional crossover being provided was only 7.9 metres, which equated to 1½ car parking spaces.

·         The two storey development does not overlook surrounding properties or gardens, as they overlook the amenity space being provided for the flats.

·         There was adequate amenity space provided for the existing units with an 18 metre wall erected to reduce the impact the compressors would have on the units.

·         The street scene would not be affected as the application was development at the rear with no established character.

·         The existing garage was to be retained and parking provided at the front of the building as this would be safe, secure and well lit. Parking at the rear was unmanageable and unsecure.

In answer to a question raised by members as to whether reason for refusal 1 was sufficient in regards to beds in sheds, officers advised that the reason for refusal was sufficient in relation to back land development.

Members felt that there were a lot of issues with the application and the recommendation for refusal was correct.  The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report.