Agenda item

Two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving demolition of existing bungalow

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving

demolition of existing bungalow

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the development area was within the Gatehill Farm East Area of Special Local Character, currently occupied by a bungalow. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of that bungalow, and the erection of a 2 storey, 4 bed detached dwelling with habitable space in the roof.

The proposal was considered acceptable in principle, however due to its overall size,  scale, bulk, height, and design, it would result in a cramped development which would fail to harmonize with the architectural composition of the adjoining dwellings and would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene and the wider Gatehill Farm Estate Area of Local Character.

In addition, it was considered that due to its size, scale, bulk and proximity, the development would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining dwelling ‘Woodcote’ by reason of over-dominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion and loss of outlook. For these reasons it was recommended that the application be refused.

A petitioner addressed the committee on behalf of the residents who had signed the petition as well as the Gatehill Residents Association, in objection to the application. Recently, the area of Gatehill Farm Estate Area of Special Local Character had been consistently threatened by a number of proposed applications that were not in keeping with the area. This was the second application for redevelopment of Pincio. The first application was refused due to similar concerns over size, scale, bulk and design, and proximity to the adjoining property.

The second application has a larger footprint than the first, refused application, with a higher roofline, and would result in an even more cramped development. Such a large development, on such a narrow plot of land, would give limited scope for any landscaping that could soften the impact, and was contrary to policy.  The proposal set out excessive hardstanding at the front of the property for car parking, which did not abide by HDAS policy which stated that at least 25% of a front garden must be maintained for soft landscaping. In addition, the proposal suggested the removal of trees and vegetation that was not all in the ownership of the applicant. For these reasons, the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

In the interest of fairness, the Chairman read a statement behalf of the applicant, responding to the petitioner.

The applicant asserted that, before submitting the application, discussions were held with a case officer and a member of the conservation team, and all subsequent recommendations from these discussions were duly incorporated into the proposal. In addition, GRA representatives, engaged at an early stage, complemented the design and helped finalise the landscaping scheme.

Regarding the petition, and the concerns raised over the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property ‘Woodcote’, the applicant asserted that proof had been submitted that showed that it was in fact a different neighbour’s garage that was causing the overshadowing referred to within the officer’s report. A full response, including responses to false measurements and exaggerations, had been submitted in a separate letter.

Mindful of the sunlight and daylight concerns, a study to assess the impact on Woodcote was commissioned by a specialist firm. This study confirmed that the proposal was acceptable with almost all BRE standards satisfied. A number of minor transgressions would arise as result of an unreasonable reliance of light over the Pincio plot, due to the position of the Woodcote garage.

When reviewing the planning report, mistakes regarding the local vicinity of the area had been noted, including the number of bungalows in the street. Concerns were raised that the last visit to the plot appeared to be over four months ago, and that there was an overreliance on the petition letter.

In summary, it was asserted that the proposal met all the technical standard requirements. The size of the proposed development was in line with other properties, particularly the new build on the land forming part of 14 Wieland Road. The flank to flank distance between Woodcote and the Pincio proposal was 6.4m; more than double the minimum of 2 x 1.5m. All other properties on the estate were two storey.

The Chair confirmed that the separate document referred to was several pages long, and was not circulated to the Committee at this late notice, particularly as the Committee would not have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant regarding its contents.

In response to the statement, officers confirmed that the report included two refusal reasons, written by the case officer, so it was surprising that the applicant had suggested that officers had advised that the proposal was acceptable at pre-application meetings.

Members confirmed that they shared the sentiments expressed within the report, and were concerned over the size, scale, bulk and design of the proposed development. However, whilst it was felt that this proposal was not suitable, it was recognised that further applications were likely to be submitted, until such time as a proposal was deemed to be suitable. It was therefore moved that the application be refused, for the two refusal reasons outlined within the report. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.