Agenda item

Two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and extensions to vehicular crossovers to front.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.

Two-storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and extensions to vehicular crossovers to front

Officers introduced the application and explained that a previous application had been refused in August 2017 as it failed to incorporate sufficient off street parking and amenity space. It was explained that the new application had addressed the parking issue, but the sub-division of the plot would result in the existing dwelling having an area of external amenity space that failed to meet the minimum area requirement set out in the HDAS SPD.

Councillor Burles spoke on behalf of the petitioners and commented that petitioners believed the application should be refused for a number of reasons:

1.    one concern related to additional parking stress - particularly in the evenings and at weekends; this also impacted on neighbouring roads. Members were advised that it was at times difficult for emergency vehicles and commercial vehicles to get through. It was reported that the proposed additional new vehicular crossover would result in a reduction in on-street parking;

2.    petitioners felt that the site was unsuitable for two dwellings and the amenity space at both of the proposed properties would be inadequate;

3.    concerns were expressed regarding the impact on privacy as the distance between bedroom windows would barely exceed the minimum requirement of 21m. Members were also advised that neighbouring properties would experience a loss of privacy due to overlooking of their patio areas. A Thames Water sewer would also need to be relocated which would necessitate the removal of trees on the site;

4.    it was felt that the street scene would be impacted negatively by the development as it would not match the street scene when viewed from the side and the rear.

The agent spoke in response to the petition stating that, in his opinion, the two reasons for refusal given in August 2017 had now been resolved in the revised application. Members were advised that the removal of the porch would enable two parking spaces to be provided side by side. It was also reported that the issue regarding the lack of amenity space for the existing and proposed dwellings had been addressed by arranging the car parking spaces side by side enabling the required 60m amenity space to be provided. The agent stated that the 60sqm amenity space requirement should only apply to new houses and should not apply to the existing dwelling. It was suggested that the guidelines for residential extensions would be more appropriate and should be applied instead; this requirement was for 40sqm rather than 60sqm. The agent reported that paragraph 7.09 of the officer's report did not recognise that the proposal was for bedroom one to be reduced in size with the addition of a dressing room, avoiding the need for a condition to ensure that no internal room partitions were erected in the future.

Councillor Cooper spoke as Ward Councillor in objection to the application and expressed satisfaction at the officers' analysis regarding amenity space for future residents. Councillor Cooper also stated that local areas should be improved rather than squeezing in additional properties unnecessarily.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement addressed the issues raised by the agent. With regard to interpretation of the guidance, Members were advised that the guidance relating to applications for new dwellings was deemed to be the most appropriate in this case and it was logical that the same numerical standards would be applied both to the proposed new dwelling and to the existing dwelling. It was reported that the existing dwelling would be reduced to 44 square metres in size under the proposal and this was insufficient.

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.