Agenda item

Two x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwellings to include habitable roofspace and basement with associated parking and amenity space and installation of 1 vehicular crossover.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: Application was deferred.

Officers introduced the report, and noted the addendum.

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

·         The proposed change to the application sought to move garages on the property layout. This was not consulted on for 21 days, and residents had not had the due chance to comment.

·         An independently commissioned light survey showed a reduction in light for the neighbouring property.

·         Windows in the new development would look into the kitchen and bedroom at a distance of 3.5 metres.

·         The proposed development protruded an additional 3-5 metres into the garden, increasing the bulk. This would be an increase of 250% compared to the existing building.

·         Officers were not enforcing existing flooding policy.

·         Subdividing into 2 units sends the wrong message to developers and erodes the character of the area.

A Member enquired about the weight of traffic on the road, to which the petitioner responded it was very high at key times and often moving dangerously fast.

A representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application, and raised the following points:

·         The character of the road was very mixed, with detached and semi-detached, and some intensive detached housing with similar and greater footprints than the proposed development.

·         Due to objections to the garages at the rear, this application moved them to the front of the property in order to preserve a tree and reduce impact on parking.

·         The would be no reduction in sunlight to the neighbouring property as this was to the south. The main source of light was from the west which would not be impeded, and the applicant has removed a tree already which allows more light to the neighbouring property. A garage near to this house was to be demolished, and the windows would be a further 1.6 metres away and glazed.

·         The proposed development is not dissimilar to neighbours, and there has always been a mutual overlooking.

The Chairman requested clarification of which rooms would be overlooked, to which the representative of the applicant confirmed it would be the kitchen and what the plans showed as a dressing area.

A Member asked if a flood report would be prepared, which the representative of the applicant confirmed and said that any problems raised could be mitigated.

Cllr Richard Lewis, ward Councillor for Northwood, submitted comments to the Committee in advance which were read out by the Chairman:

"I would be grateful if you were to pass to the Chairman and Committee Members my objections to this application with my ward. Firstly I would ask the Committee to accept that there is considerable local opposition to this application. For my part, I am greatly concerned about the loss of light for 9 Sandy Lodge Way as well as their loss of privacy. It would appear to be an overdevelopment which would greatly increase the density of housing on a relatively small plot of land and I also have major reservations as I believe the development would change the nature and character for the worst of this very pleasant road. For all the above reasons I would ask the Committee to reject this application."

The Chairman asked officers to comment on the requirement to reconsult over the changes to the layout. Officers confirmed that there was no obligation to reconsult when the biggest change was repositioning two parking bays.

The Chairman asked officers to comment on the changes to access. The Highways officer stated that access was close to a junction which was problematic, and ideally would be a joint access instead of the present location.

A Member commented that the glazed windows were sufficient to address concerns of overlooking, but asked officers to comment on questions regarding light. Officers responded that the projection was the the development would not lead to a loss of light.

A Member commented that they remained concerned by the overlooking, the effect of the basement, and also potential changes to the character of the road. Members discussed further consideration of these concerns, and attending a site visit for greater understanding.

The motion for deferral was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote

was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was deferred pending a site visit.