Agenda item

Three storey, 7-bed detached dwelling house with habitable basement and roof space, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for a three storey, 7 bed detached dwelling house with habitable basement ad roof space, involving the demolition of the existing dwelling house.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

·         The Gateshill Farm estate consisted of modest four - five bedroom detached houses in spacious surroundings.

·         The proposals were large and block like.

·         The petition agreed with the officers' design and appearance grounds for refusal as there is nothing similar to this development on the estate.

·         The petitioner requested the additional reasons to be included in the refusal for the application as they were not in policy.

·         Overdevelopment - even with the amendment, altering the underground annex to become two large store rooms, it could be inhabited by up to 12 people leading to a house in multiple occupancy or small hotel.

·         The size scale and bulk as a result of the design and third storey crown roof was not in policy. Boundary rules for new developments had been ignored.

·         The basement had doubled the foot print for the house.

·         There was a flooding risk as the proposal took no account of the management of surface water and a stream at the bottom of the garden.

·         The applicant's site plan shows incorrect ownership of parts of the land.

·         There was a lack of 25 percent soft landscape on the applicant's land as they have given it over to accommodate cars.

·         Asked the committee to unanimously refuse the application and adding the considerations discussed.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The application site had been the subject of a number of planning applications and these were material considerations in determining the current scheme on the site.

·         The most relevant application was tithe application relating to extension and alterations, including a two storey rear extension, the construction for a basement and loft conversion. This scheme was approved in April 2015. This was an important consideration as the principle building of the site had already been established.

·         Another important material factor in determining the scheme was the recent refusal for a replacement dwelling on the site.  This scheme was refused on 14 March 2017 as a result of the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling.

·         As a result of the refusal the design of the proposal had been revised.

·         Wieland Road comprises a mixture of residential dwellings of various sizes, designs and materials.

·         Based on previous approved applications, dwellings with contemporary designs have been considered acceptable in the street. This has been demonstrated at another property on the street which draws on very similar designs of the current scheme.

·         The proposed development proposed a form of development that would be partly in the footprint of development and existing forms of development on the site. The suggestion of it being cramped has been revised and improved in the distances and boundaries between neighbouring properties.

·         Car parking is considered to be appropriate and officers have not raised any concerns in relation to this.

·         Requested that Members approved the application contrary to officer recommendation.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor Bianco was unable to attend the meeting, but confirmed that he fully supported the officer recommendation for refusal.

The Head of Planning commented on the request for additional refusal reasons.  The reasons related to some policies in use and some emerging policies and this took out the reason relating to the basement policy and flood risk. Crown roofs were not a characteristic of the estate and there was an issue in relation to this and could be added to strength the refusal reasons.

Members considered it o be overdevelopment in terms of size and bulk. The main key removal was the balcony and windows and opening of porch there is no difference.

The Head of Planning clarified the changes that have been made to the application and drew the committee's attention to relevant parts of the reports.  The impact has been acceptable. This application has been more of a tiding up of the alleviations. This is fully compliant with policy and within street scene.

Members considered strengthen refusal reason one relating to the proposed development being cramped by reason of its design and appearance.

Members were also concerned about the large crown roof as they dramatically affected a street scene. Corwn rookfs do not appear o be the character of the estate. Members questioned the car parking provision appeasrs to be made on land controlled by the trustees. Officers confirmed that there as a verge owend by Gatehilss resident sassocation. The agent clarified that it not their intention to do development on land outside their development.

Mmebers agreed that the refusal reasons ought to be redrafted and agreed with the Chairman and Labour Lead, taking into account crown roofs and the inspectors refusal commentary. They also agreed to check the landscaping and car pakring provisions proprosed is in policy. The scale, bulkand crown roof would be incorporated into the refusal reasons would reflect the comments by the Members and petitioner.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, six in favour and two abstained.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee:

1) refuse the application as per officer's recommendation and;

2) delegate authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead, to draft and agree the refusal reasons.