Agenda item

Retrospective application for the retention of 2 semi detached dwelling houses at 27a & 27b Daleham Drive.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and provided an overview of the application.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and raised the following points:

·         The development had a larger footprint than the previously approved applications, and was oversized and unsightly.

·         The privacy of neighbours was compromised by the deviations from the original plans. Lights to the rear of the development caused a disruption to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

·         The 2 front entrances to the development are positioned in the middle of the building, and not in the middle of each unit as situated in the original application.

·         The front of the plot has been fully concreted, with no landscaping.

·         The development is 3 stories, and not 2 as set out in the original application.

·         The development is 4 bedrooms, and not 2 as set out in the original application.

·         The roof was oversized and included an end gable containing the Master bedroom and a skylight in contrast to the original plans.

·         The development had been constructed with the wrong colour of bricks.

·         The original application had been limited to 2 bedrooms per unit due to safety concerns, which the new construction compromised.

·         The petitioner requested that the property be demolished, as the bricks themselves were unacceptable and could not be changed.

·         Further, the petitioner questioned why the property had not been inspected early in the building process to notice problems and deviations from the approved application.

The agent for the application attended and raised the following points:

·         The property did in fact not have a larger footprint.

·         Each unit had 3 bedrooms with a study, and not 4 bedrooms as claimed by the petitioner.

·         The officer report stated that the height of the eaves had been raised, but this was incorrect - the gabled roof changed the shape of the roof.

·         The agent disputed the statement in the officer's report that the roof was out of keeping, and circulated photos of nearby houses with the permission of the chairman, which indicated varying styles of roofs in the vicinity.  Properties in nearby roads had gabled roofs, and in some roads all properties had gabled roofs.

·         The entrance doors to each unit are in the wrong place. The builder decided that this would reduce the impact of noise between adjoining walls.

·         The brick is a different colour to that approved in the application, but there are a number of red brick properties on Daleham Drive and in surrounding streets.

·         The lack of front landscaping could be rectified by a condition.

Prior to discussion, officers clarified that all the changes from the original approved application were listed in the report. A change was not in itself reason for rejection of the application, and that Members should assess the building as it now was.

Members enquired as to whether permitted development rights were conditioned in the original application, and whether other properties in Daleham Drive with hipped roofs could that change this to gabled under permitted development. Officers clarified that permitted development rights were not removed for other properties in the road to change roofs under lawful development certificates, but the question remained as to whether the development was in-keeping with the neighbourhood. Members were within their rights to give weight to the changing characteristic of the road in their decision, or to reject the application if it was decided that the development was not sufficiently in-keeping with the street scene.

Officers indicated the public vantage point from aerial images, and said it was a question of how far from the development in question Members decided to include properties in their decision for whether the roof was in-keeping. The chairman indicated that given the complexity of this point, Members of the Committee may benefit from a site visit to inform their decision.

A motion to defer the application pending a site visit was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be deferred pending a site visit from members.