Agenda item

2-bed, detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

2-bed, detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Officers introduced the application, confirming that the site was currently vacant and overgrown, with the boundary fencing (made up of chain link fencing) in disrepair. The site fronted an adopted service road that ran along the rear of shops fronting Field End Road. The road was used to service those shops, as well as to provide access to two nearby car parks. Planning permission was sought for the development of a 2 bed detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Members were reminded of the site's extensive planning history, of which the most pivotal decisions were considered to be the 2006 and 2009 appeal decisions. In 2006, an appeal was dismissed concerning a building with four one bedroom flats. The Inspector ruled that there would not be harm to neighbours amenity, however the Inspector thought it would be a cramped development and that the proposals would not respect the local character. The appeal was therefore dismissed.  In 2009 consent was granted on appeal for a two storey office development. The Inspector felt it was a suitable location for new office development and would satisfactorily relate to surrounding commercial development.

Officers considered that, in principle, the site was suitable for commercial development, but not suitable for residential development. Due to the characteristics of the site it was felt that a residential unit would be out of character with the surrounding built form, and the application was recommended for refusal for this reason.

A petitioner addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents of the Close, in objection to the proposal. The petitioner pointed that, whilst the site did have an extensive planning history, it was only the most recent application, from October 2015, that was associated with the current applicant.

Reasons for objection included concerns over the potential for drainage and flooding issues within garden areas, following the introduction of paved area around the perimeter. In addition, the service road was prone to flooding, and it was not considered that the proposed soakaway would prove sufficient to remove the excess water. The area was busy with pedestrians using the nearby shops, and residents had safety concerns due to the high volume of traffic that would result, were the application to be approved.

All properties backing onto the service road had a tree line that provided a barrier for sound and privacy. The application proposed the removal of trees on the application site, and residents were concerned that this could have a detrimental effect on the roots of the trees on the adjacent properties, which in turn could seriously affect residents' rights to privacy were those trees to be damaged and removed.

The current proposal was only 1m away from residents' boundary line, and 5m in height. In its report from 2015, the Council stated that a 1.5m boundary line would make it difficult for trees to adequately screen the site from nearby residential properties. This was also highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate in January 2012. The Committee was reminded of existing covenants that prohibited the building of any commercial development on the land, and considering all of the above, it was requested that the application be refused.

Members deliberated, and were reminded that the Inspectorate guidance on what was acceptable for developments of this type was a material consideration for the Committee. Members shared the concerns raised within the officer's report and by the petitioner, with particular reference made to road safety and the safety of pedestrians. Officers confirmed that permission had been previously granted for an office development on the site, and that the current proposal was unlikely to create a higher volume of traffic than the previously approved application. Officers confirmed that they felt that the report set out a strong reason for refusal, and it was unlikely that an additional reason for refusal, relating to road safety, would be helpful.

Members therefore moved the officer's recommendation as set out in the report. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.