Agenda item

Two storey, 6-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and basement with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey, 6-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and basement with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Officers introduced the report which sought permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling and its replacement with a two storey, 6 bedroom detached dwelling. The Committee's attention was drawn to the planning history included in the officer's report, noting that a proposed extension had previously been granted planning permission.

Any concerns about drainage and accumulated groundwater could be addressed through conditions and were not grounds for refusal of the application.

The footprint of the proposed dwelling would be larger than the footprint of the existing premises. The proposed building was considered to be too bulky and  would detract from the character and appearance of the original dwelling. It was, therefore, unacceptable in design terms and officers were recommending that the application be refused.

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:

·         The petition had obtained 130 signatures in objection to the plans, which was indicative of the strength of local feeling.

·         The development would not comply with a number of Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies including :

o   BE1 Built Environment, as the development would impinge on gardens and green space.

o   BE6 - there would not be a gap of at least 1.5 metres between the development and neighbouring properties.

o   BE19 - the development would not complement the character of the local area.

o   BE20 - there would be a significant loss of daylight.

o   BE21 - the development would be excessively bulky.

·         The lack of WC facilities on the ground floor was a concern as the premises may not be suitable for disabled persons in the future.

·         The eaves of the house would be deep and in breach of the 45 degree rule.

·         The area of the garden would be reduced, resulting in it only being possible to park three cars, instead of four.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The footprint of the proposed dwelling was comparable to the plans that had previously been approved.

·         There would be a minimum distance of 1.5 metres between the development and the property boundary, with there being a 4 metre gap to the boundary of number 53 Wieland Road.

·         The elevation of the proposed development was less than that of the previously approved plans.

·         The development ensured that sufficient green space would be retained and the development would amount to a high quality family home.

In response a Member question, it was confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure the provision of a ground floor WC. There were also concerns about the compliance of the development with the 45 degree rule.

It was clarified that there was no requirement for four off road parking spaces to be provided. As at least two spaces would be provided this was, therefore, not relevant to the planning decision.

It was questioned why there were concerns about the current proposals as there did not appear to be a significant difference between the plans under consideration and the previously approved proposals in terms of the distance between the dwelling and the site boundary. Following discussion, there was a consensus that the proposed building did extend too far, especially at the front of the premises.

Members agreed with the officer proposal to reject the application as the development would not be in keeping with the special character of the area and it was felt that making an exception by approving the application could set a precedent.

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

RESOLVED: That: the application be refused as per the officer recommendation.