Agenda item

Two storey, 2-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and part two storey, part single storey rear extension to existing dwelling and installation of crossover to front

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two storey, 2-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and part two storey, part single storey rear extension to existing dwelling and installation of crossover to front

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application had been deferred from the Planning Committee held on 7 February 2018 to allow Members to visit the site. That site visit had since taken place, and Members were reminded that a full presentation on the application had been provided to the Committee prior to that visit.

Officers asserted that the application failed to address relevant national and Council policies alongside the HDAS (SPG), and it was considered that the proposal would result in a cramped development due to its siting on an open, prominent, position, and would be visually at odds with the predominant character, appearance and scale of buildings within the surrounding street scene. The proposal also failed to make sufficient parking provision to meet Council standards.

Clarity was sought on the non-standard reason for refusal that related to parking spaces. Officers advised the Committee that for two-bed family dwelling properties, one and a half parking spaces per dwelling was sought. On this particular site, there would therefore be a requirement for three parking spaces. The Committee was advised that it was unlikely that such a refusal reason could be successfully defended, should the matter go to an appeal.

The Chairman clarified that, upon attending the site visit, it was apparent that most properties within the area had one parking space, and it was accepted that it was difficult to allocate one and a half spaces per property on such a small development. On this basis, it was felt that it would be difficult to argue that the proposal was not providing adequate parking provision.

The Chairman highlighted the officer’s report, which set out the strong reasons why officers felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the street scene, in what was an area of special local character. The Chairman requested that the Committee consider whether the benefit of an additional property being built in the area outweighed the detrimental impact of the development on the street scene.

Member opinions were mixed. Some Members felt that the impact on the street scene was negligible. It was pointed out that, within the area of special local character, all terraced houses were situated on the north side of the street, with semi-detached properties on the south side. Upon review, three of the terraced houses (namely 33 East Walk, 22 West Walk, and 25 West Walk) were felt to have a significant detrimental impact on the street scene in excess of that which would be caused by the proposed development. It was suggested that some of these properties had been developed in contravention to local planning policies, for example by including hipped roofs.

It was also felt that the lack of uniformity within the properties in the area meant that there was no real street scene to impact upon. In addition, when looking into the street, the first thing seen was a large shed that was more prominently sited than the proposed development, which would only advance forward a small distance. It was therefore suggested that the proposed development would be appropriate to the location, and therefore the application should be permitted.

In response, officers confirmed that some of the properties within the terrace  had been development lawfully in compliance with Council policy at the time, (with one example given of a permitted development from 2008), though it was accepted that policies had since been changed. Other properties were either lacking in planning history or under review and potential enforcement action.

Officers confirmed that the reasons for refusal relating to the impact on the street scene could be sustained at an appeal, as the character of the street was being significantly changed by introducing an additional dwelling, and while other properties in the area had been extended, they had not been split into separate houses. It was suggested that, by allowing this application, a precedent would be set that would allow further plots to be subdivided, which would have a marked impact on the area of special local character moving forward.

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the comments of the conservation officer and the Conservation Area Advisory Panel. Concerns raised were predominantly around the infilling of the space around the buildings and visual the impact of that, as well as the visual impact of the side wall, rather than the design of the property.

A contrasting view was raised, and the officers report was highlighted, which stated that the Council had implemented the requirement within the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, but that they had been unable to seek solutions to problems arising from the application as the principle of the proposal was clearly contrary to the Council’s statutory policies, and negotiation could not overcome the reasons for refusal.

Some Members took the view that there was no justifiable reason to overturn the officer’s decision, following the robust reasons for refusal set out in the report, as well as the detrimental impact on the street scene that had been observed during the site visit. The officer’s suggestion that by allowing the application, Member’s would be setting a precedent for other plots in the area to be subdivided was noted.

The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded.  When put to a vote, the recommendation was agreed by a vote of 5 to 2.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.