Agenda item

Two x 3-bed detached bungalows with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two x 3-bed detached bungalows with associated parking and amenity

space

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the proposed new properties would be chalet bungalows located on two garden plots at the rear of 51 and 53 Pembroke Road, accessed by a route from Pembroke Road. Existing vehicular access would be opened up to allow access to the plots 1 and 2, and officers considered that the proposed new parking arrangements would work for the scheme. Members were informed that although the current garden was very long, it was not uncharacteristic of the area to have large, detached properties with extensive gardens.

Members were reminded that iterations of the application had been before the Committee on a number of previous occasions, including three refusals dismissed on appeal. The current proposal differed slightly from the version most recent recently dismissed on appeal, as the buildings had been reduced from two and a half storeys to bungalows, the width of the dwellings had been reduced by 1.7m, and the width of the hard standing had been reduced by 0.4m, alongside the addition of new planting. However, officers did not consider that the changes addressed the previous reasons for refusal or the issues raised at appeal, and it was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

The Chairman confirmed that a petition in objection to the application had been received, but that the petitioner was not present.

The agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee, and stated that previous applications had primarily been refused due to concerns over the quantum of development and the effect on views from buildings facing the site. Regarding the principle of development, the agent asserted that the inspector had stated that the loss of garden land as proposed would not cause unacceptable harm, and did not justify a refusal. The inspector had gone on to state that in principle, there was no reason why some form of residential development at the site should not be acceptable.  In response to the pre-application enquiry for the current scheme, the agent stated that Council's officer had confirmed that there was no principle objection to background development, providing that it was of appropriate scale and did not erode the open and green character of the surrounding area.

With regard to the quantum of development, the current scheme was proposing a 60% reduction in floor space from the earlier proposal, and a reduction in height from two and a half storey buildings to bungalows that were no higher than the nearby perimeter hedges. In commenting on the pre-application enquiry, the agent confirmed that the Council's officer had stated that the reduction in the size and scale of the development were welcomed and was considered acceptable in the context of the site. The agent confirmed that the width of the dwellings had been reduced by 1.7m, eaves had been lowered by 2.6m, ridges lowered by 2.6m, and the gap between the proposed dwellings increased by 6.8m.

In relation to the proposed drive access, the agent asserted that the appeal inspector had previously stated that the proposed access onto Pembroke Road would be visually acceptable. With regard to the affected views between buildings, the Council had approved a new two storey dwelling attached to the side of 51 Pembroke Road, and whilst that would not go ahead should this application be approved, it was a material planning consideration, as it would have further restricted views towards the site that would affect the Pembroke Road frontage.

The agent went on to highlight that there were no views into the garden land from 51 or 53 Pembroke Road from the street, as the gardens were either obscured by buildings or by 2m high fences. Additionally, as the land proposed for development was devoid of any vegetation other than grass, there was nothing to be seen from the public realm. The high level vegetation of trees and tops of hedges was aligned exclusively on the site boundaries and was to remain unchanged. Extensive new soft landscaping would include six new trees within the body of the site, together with two new trees along the road frontage. All boundary vegetation was to be retained.

The agent confirmed his concern that the officer's report was recommending refusal, as this was contrary to the positive comments and advice received following the pre-application enquiry. In addition, concerns were raised that the case officer had not conducted a site visit, and therefore that the merits of the proposal had not been adequately assessed. In addition, the agent contended that the officer's report contained a number of errors, and excessively laboured the views into the site, which in reality did not exist, thereby compounding the misapprehension that the new buildings would be visible.

The agent concluded by asserting that all previous concerns had been addressed, reflected in the positive pre-application enquiry response received, before confirming that the applicant would accept a deferral to enable a site visit to be carried out.

The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to page 19 of the report, which referenced several matters that the agent had omitted from his representation. With regard to the agent's assertion that the advice received as part of the pre-application enquiry was felt to be inappropriate, the Chairman confirmed that this should be addressed through the Council's complaints procedure. The Chairman went on to advise that the Committee would be considering the application in light of the signed officer report presented by the Head of Planning, which was the considered views of the Planning department and associated officers.

Members confirmed that they did not consider that the new application had addressed the recent inspector comments regarding developments in rear gardens, and the officer's recommendation was therefore moved. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.