Agenda item

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling and conversion of dwelling house into 1 x 1-bed and 1 x 2-bed self-contained units involving single storey rear extension with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing garage.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.

Officers introduced the application which sought to erect a 3-bed detached dwelling and to convert a dwelling house into 2 self-contained units.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application stating that residents had two primary concerns. The first concern related to the proposed 'garden house'. The petitioner stated that some residents of The Sigers would be overlooked by the new development and would also inevitably be overlooking the new garden property themselves. The petitioner also stated that, according to the planning officer's report, the distance between the proposed garden house and The Sigers properties was approximately 21m which was the minimum distance required.  The second concern related to the conversion of the main house into two flats. The petitioner claimed that conversions of this kind were proliferating in the area at the expense of larger houses. It was suggested that further reasons for refusal could therefore be added to the decision notice.

The applicant addressed the Committee stating that the division of the existing house into two flats appeared to meet all the Local Authority requirements so he wanted to focus on the new build. The applicant advised that he had sought pre-application advice and the position and design of the development was as proposed by the Planning Officer. It was claimed that the Planning Officer had stated in a report to the applicant that he had no objections in principle either to the proposed conversion of the main house or to the garden house. One of the concerns raised related to the back drop to the listed Tudor Lodge Hotel. The applicant referred to the row of mature trees on the boundary with the Hotel and stated that there was scope to plant more trees to increase the density. It was stated that the proposed new build would be further away from the Hotel than the existing Hotel annex and the trees would provide some shielding. An arboricultural report had been received advising that the works could be carried out without damage to the existing trees. The applicant also claimed that his neighbours would experience no more overlooking than he currently did in his own garden and commented that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the current street scene. The development was intended for the use of the applicant's family members only so they would not be forced to move out of the area.

The applicant was informed that, if he felt dissatisfied with the pre-application advice provided, this was a separate issue and would need to be raised with the planning department at a later stage.

The Head of Planning addressed the points raised and stated that the 21m limit had definitely been met in this case, but this meant that the proposed development would be very close to the boundary with the trees. It was confirmed that the trees had a very important role in screening the development from the Grade II listed Hotel. It was further stated that an arboricultural report had not formed part of the pre-application advice provided. It had subsequently become apparent that there were substantial root systems which extended into the rear garden and it was confirmed that the proposed development would heavily encroach on the root system. Members were informed that no significant changes to the front elevation of the main property were proposed. The Head of Planning did not believe that any additional reasons for refusal could be added to the report.

The Committee moved, seconded and unanimously voted to refuse the application.

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.