Agenda item

Erection of a three storey building to create 9 x 3-bed self-contained flats with car parking within basement, with associated parking and landscaping, installation of vehicular crossover to front and detached summerhouse to rear, involving demolition of existing houses (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.

Erection of a three storey building to create 9 x 3-bed self-contained flats with car parking within basement, with associated parking and landscaping, installation of vehicular crossover to front and detached summerhouse to rear, involving demolition of existing houses (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Officers stated that this was a resubmission; the previous application was refused for a number of reasons including flood risk concerns. In this latest application, balconies to the rear had been removed, obscure glazing incorporated and the roof remodelled. Officers recommended that the application be refused due to concerns regarding the detrimental impact on the character of the area and the overbearing nature of the rear projection. Officers also stated that the development would be in breach of the Council's current threshold which states that no more than 10% of the original plot can be converted to flats in a 1km area.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application stating that the development would be on green field land apart from the footprint of the current houses and citing policy DMH6 which related to inappropriate development in residential gardens. The petitioner suggested that a third reason for refusal should be added regarding the development of land which had not been developed previously.

The applicant spoke in support of the application stating that pre-application advice was sought prior to submitting the original application in June 2016 and that the application was supported by planning officers at the time. When the application was refused, a revised one was submitted which had been changed significantly at the behest of the Council to meet the requirements of planning officers. The applicant stated that the 10% issue had only been raised one week before the meeting and claimed that they had been unfairly treated by the Council's planning department.

The Ward Councillor raised concerns regarding the density of the site, loss of light and privacy, the risk of flooding, lack of parking and the drastic alteration to the street scene.

The Head of Planning was invited to comment on advice given to the applicant and stated that the 10% rule was outlined clearly in the written pre-application advice supplied to the applicant on 6 June 2016. Reference was also made to the overwhelming detrimental impact on the outlook at the neighbouring property and these 2 robust reasons were given for recommending that the application be refused.

The Committee referred to the applicant's complaint regarding the handling of the application and stated that this should be dealt with outside the meeting through the Council's official complaints process.

Members suggested that refusal reason one be strengthened to incorporate the additional third reason for refusal raised by the petitioner. It was proposed that the item be delegated to the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The Committee supported the officer's recommendation and recommended that the application be refused due to concerns regarding intensification and the breaching of the 10% rule.

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer's recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused and that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to agree the wording of the reasons for refusal in conjunction with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.