Agenda item

Two two-storey, four-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, wall / fence to front, and installation of two vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for two storey, four bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, wall/fence to front, and installation of two vehicle cross over, involving demolition of existing bungalow. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petition had been submitted in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The proposed application would cause an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy of several local properties. If the proposed development were permitted, it would allow the petitioner's garden and kitchen to be overlooked by at least four first floor windows, thus eradicating privacy.

·         The proposed three additional driveways did not match the character of the properties bordering the northern edge of the Close.

·         The rear way driveways currently used by local residents on the Close reduces traffic and has benefits for the safety and amenity for its residents. The proposal would negatively affect this.

·         The proposal would result in the removal of at least four car parking spaces.

·         Normans Close is used by a large number of pedestrians and the proposed developments would increase the risk of harm to them.

·         The proposed development would impact the outlook of the building and would remove direct sunlight to properties 2 and 3 Normans Close.

The agent for the application addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         Throughout this application, extensive discussion had taken place with officers at the Council to ensure that high quality and well designed house were developed.

·         Initially the applicant and agent had made an application to develop three properties, but this reduced to two in accordance with advice from officers.

·         The proposed development met local plan policy in terms of design, amenity space and density.

·         These were the types of sites that would meet current housing needs.

·         The dwellings were set back a significant distance from Normans Close to ensure that the open character of the junction remained. 

·         Although there would be some disturbances for a short period during building works, the agent and applicant would adhere to the best practices to ensure minimal disruption. Contact details for site managers would be made available to residents to ensure clear lines of communication.

Councillor Richard Mills, Ward Councillor for Brunel, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the residents. He highlighted the residents' concerns about their  privacy, potential lack of light, overlooking and the availability of parking.

In response to matters raised by Members, officers confirmed that:

·         From the plans before there would be no intrusion to 3 Normans close.

·         The distance to protect against invasion of privacy and the proposed development met the 21 metre policy.  The distance was also acceptable in relation to overlooking standards.

·         The outlook for the property would change but the Council's standards of t outlook and loss of sunlight were being met. In meeting these standards, officer concluded that these considerations would not negatively impact local residents.

·         Although there would be a loss of one car parking space and a slight reduction in another car parking space but space would still be available. Members made the point that this loss in car parking would be significant to the residents as parking may be difficult in this area. The plans before the committee were compliant with standards.

·         In relation to character, there were no set standards in a size limit in terms of a foot print. The stands in relation to distance of the building are being met. The size of the proposed dwelling is not a reason to refuse the application here are a variety of house sizes in the area.

Members commented that this was an emotional proposed development as residents had lived in the area for a long time. However, Members considered the proposed developed met The Council's standards and policies and on balance considered to be a decent proposal. Members considered tightening the wording in condition 11.

Members moved the officer's recommendation, and this was seconded and unanimously agreed when put to a vote.

RESOLVED: That the Committee approve the application with amendments to condition 11.