Agenda item

3 x two storey, 5-bed detached dwellings with habitable roof space and 1x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping with installation of vehicular crossovers and demolition of existing dwelling house.

Recommendation: Approval + Section 106

The application was refused.

3 x two storey, 5-bed detached dwellings with habitable roof space and 1x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping with installation of vehicular crossovers and demolition of existing dwelling house

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

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 scheme had been previously refused for Bulk, Scale & Siting and overlooking .The new proposal was no better.
• The height of the proposal had "increased" by 1.41metressince the refusal.
• The application still failed the minimum distances for overlooking (private amenity/patio & lounge patio Windows/doors).
• The limited new change did not resolve the "very significant loss of amenity" to key habitable rooms, patio and garden through total loss of direct late afternoon -sunset sunlight ( key social time ) for 9 months of the year

• All new proposed houses were taller than existing / remaining
• Even with the applicants' changes there would be a circa 100% plus ratio in new internal floor space to that of the remaining houses of Hurst Place and Jackets Lane.
• 3 metre high hedging proposed already breached the Councils high hedging policy (2 metres).However, 5 metres hedging would be required to prevent overlooking.

• The proposal would further reduce sunlight to the garden of 4 Glynswood.
• The scale and siting of the proposed building meant the landscaping buffer would not reduce the significant impact to the visual amenity.
• A site visit was requested.

A representative of the applicant made the following points:

• The proposal had been designed in accordance with HDAS.
• The landscape buffer would provide additional privacy.
• An overshadowing report had been provided by the applicant which illustrated there would be limited overshadowing.

A Ward Councillor spoke in support of the petitioner and the following points were made:

• The proposal was over dominant.
• The gardens of adjoining properties would suffer considerable loss of light in the afternoons.
• The application was out of character with the area.
• The application should be refused.

Discussing the application, the Committee raised a number of concerns namely, the distance between the application site and neighbouring properties, overshadowing, size and scale and its impact on character of the area. The Committee raised concerns that this application was back-land development.

In response, Officers explained the application was compliant with the Council's 21m rule. The Legal Officer advised that the development could not be classified as back-land development.

Having considered the matter, it was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed with 5 votes in favour with 3 against that the officer recommendation for approval be overturned and the application be refused as the development proposal, by virtue of the siting, bulk, and proximity of the new building on plot 4 would result in significant loss of residential amenity to occupiers of No. 4 Glynswood Place, contrary to 'saved' policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan (2012).  Exact wording to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement.

Resolved -

That the application be overturned and refused

The scale, massing and proximity of plot 4 to its immediate neighbour is such that it would be likely to lead to an oppressive form of enclosure, which given the local context of large detached houses set in spacious plots would be overbearing and visually intrusive for occupiers of No. 4 Glynswood Place. This is contrary to 'saved' policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan (2012) which seeks to resist development proposals that would result in a significant loss of residential amenity.