Agenda item

57 Copse Wood Way - 24862/APP/2015/3571

Two storey, 5-bedroom, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace to include 2 front dormers, 1 rear dormer, integral garage, parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling (Additional information received).

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

The application was approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum. The application had previously been deferred, due to concerns relating to impact on neighbours and a request for a shadowing diagram.

 

A petitioner distributed a written document and, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         The petitioner was addressing the Committee on behalf of 40 residents who had signed the petition.

·         That square footage of the proposed development would be an increase of 92% on the present house, and the footprint would increase by 26%.

·         It was policy for developments not to protrude beyond the existing building line, but this property did so in front of the building lines of numbers 55, 57 and 59, and would not step down as other houses did on the street. This set a worrying precedent and would dilute the special character of the street.

·         The most recent designs transgressed the 45 degree line with a neighbouring property, though the officer report stated that it did not.

·         The petitioner indicated overshadowing diagrams, stating that the proposed development would deprive existing properties of daylight from 1pm in summer, and likely at all times in winter.

·         The development contradicted numerous policies designed to preserve the visual amenity of neighbours, and the plans should be rejected.

 

A representative of the agent, speaking in support, raised the following points:

·         Though the proposed development did sit within the 45 degree angle for overshadowing, it did not contravene policy as this was only in plan form and not in elevation.

·         The centre of the rear garden of number 55 would receive 8 hours of sunlight on the day of the spring equinox, more than the required 2.

·         The height of the property had been raised by 200mm in the plans, and described by officers as de minimis.

·         The current gap between properties would actually increase, affording views of the trees through the gap.

·         The property was located on the curve of the street, and there was no standard distance from the street for houses.

 

The Chairman requested that officers clarify the debate regarding the 45 degree line of overlooking and overshadowing. Officers responded that the proposal was within minimum requirements. Specialist surveyors had been commissioned, and there were no grounds to challenge their findings.

 

A Member of the Committee stated his belief that the proposal was overbearing and not in-keeping with the character of the street. Furthermore, it was unreasonable to measure overshadowing from the middle of a garden, and the diagrams indicated that the neighbour would be overshadowed by 3pm. Officers pointed out that these were secondary windows, but the Member confirmed that he could not support the application.

 

A Member of the Committee stated that he had attended the site visit and noted similar properties across the street. He advised that as officers could confirm the overshadowing was of secondary windows the Committee should adhere to the policy and approve the application.

 

Members queried the landscaping, to which officers drew attention to condition 5 which established the requirements. An informative designed to preserve the hedges was proposed. A general discussion ensued that the property was not wholly desirable, but was within limits set by Council guidance and the impact on the street scene was acceptable.

 

A motion for approval was moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote was agreed by a margin of 7 in favour and 1 against.

 

Resolved:

 

-       That the application was approved, subject to the inclusion of an informative to the wording of condition 5 highlighting the Council's desire to protect the existing hedges on the site.

Supporting documents: