Agenda item

Two storey, 3-bed dwelling with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two storey, 3-bed dwelling with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application had been previously refused due to the Committee's concerns that the proposal did not respect the architectural character of the street scene of the wider Area of Special Local Character. The proposal had since been amended, and it was felt that these concerns had been addressed. As such, the application was recommended for approval.

A petition addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal, on behalf of over 150 neighbours form over 70 homes in the area. The petitioner asserted that the plot of land was not of sufficient size of such a development, and that despite the Committee's refusal, development work had begun on the site. The petitioner claimed that there was little difference between the original application and the revised application, and that the proposal was still too large and tall, was forward of the existing building line, and would have a detrimental impact on the area, as well as on neighbours' light and private amenity due to overdominance. The petitioner therefore requested that the application be refused.

A second petitioner addressed the Committee, also in objection to the proposal on behalf of Gatehill Residents Association. The petitioner's concerns included a lack of private amenity space caused by the size of the proposed building, the potential for the front garden to be used for parking and manoeuvring. The petitioner asserted that, in his opinion, there were no conditions that could be put in place to mitigate the lack of garden space resulting from the proposal, and there were additional concerns that approving the application could set a precedent for future applications that were also not in keeping with the Area of Special Local Character. The petitioner therefore requested that the application be refused.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee in response. The agent confirmed that in response to the previous decision to refuse planning permission, the applicant had worked alongside the planning case officer to address the Committee's concerns over scale, height, and building line. This had resulted in a significantly improved proposal that was visually in keeping with the area and fully complied with the relevant policies. The proposal would not cause any significant loss of privacy or light, there would be no overlooking, and an inspector had also not raised any objections. It was asserted that the objections were disproportionate to what was a carefully crafted proposal designed to improve a vacant plot of land. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be approved.

Members sought clarity on the boundary requirement. Officers confirmed that the proposal complied with the 1.5m requirement, though Members challenged this due to the inclusion of an exterior chimney breast on the south elevation, which appeared to reduce the distance between the properties. 

During discussion relating to the outcome of any potential appeals, Officers highlighted that the conservation officer had been heavily involved with the application and had not raised any concerns.

Members discussed the application, with some Members deeming the proposal to be acceptable in light of the revisions made and the comments of the Conservation officer. Other Members raised concerns over the size, scale and bulk of the proposed development, and for these reasons, it was moved that the application be refused. This was seconded, and agreed by a vote of 5 to 3.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.