Agenda item

Two storey building with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space to form 3 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed self contained flats involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Two-storey building with habitable roofspace, parking and amenity space to form 3 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Members were informed that a crossover on West End Road formed part of the application. The application also included 3 parking spaces to the front and 2 to the rear of the property. Given that there was no particular pattern or character of development along West End Road, the two storey block of flats with a pitched hipped roof and two small rear dormers was deemed to be in keeping with the street scene and the overall character of the area. Members were advised that the height of the proposed building was identical to the adjoining dwelling. The application was for a corner property therefore the only dwelling which would potentially be implicated by the development would be number 283 West End Road. The windows to the side of the house were non-habitable landing windows therefore it was considered that there would be no detrimental overlooking or loss of light to habitable rooms.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and suggested that:-

·         the development appeared to be in contravention of Council policies as it did not respect the local context, street pattern or the scale and proportion of surrounding buildings;

·         the development would affect the amenity of local residents, particularly on-road parking, greenery and privacy;

·         the development would create cramping;

·         there would be an invasion of privacy as gardens would be overlooked;

·         the development would block the sunlight to the neighbouring dwelling;

·         the drainage system which became blocked at times would potentially be unable to cope with the extra influx;

·         the proposed parking would lead to loss of greenery;

·         the proposed crossover was in close proximity to the petitioner's crossover which would be dangerous, particularly for school children attempting to cross the road;

·         West End Road was a busy and dangerous road already and any additional traffic would exacerbate the problem;

·         The developer had already purchased an additional property in the area for further development;

·         The proposed development was having a detrimental effect on the health of residents in the area.

Members requested clarification regarding the matter of the two crossovers and were advised that the new crossing conformed to the Council's scale standards and the gapping between the two crossings was in the region of 5 metres which exceeded required standards.

Members expressed concern regarding the possibility of overlooking into the rear garden of no. 283 and access to the proposed parking spaces. It was confirmed that accessing parking spaces within the site would be achievable. Moreover, Members were advised that there were no habitable windows directly overlooking no. 283; it was possible to see the far end of the rear garden but this was not untypical in the Borough due to the density of housing and was deemed to be acceptable.

Members requested clarification regarding the 10% ceiling on flats in West End Road. It was confirmed that there were very few flatted blocks in the area and there were currently no new flats / apartments in the part of West End Road in question, therefore it was felt that the construction of flats was acceptable in principle.

With regard to the general street scene, the Committee sought further clarification regarding the types of properties on the four corners of the junction of Edwards Avenue / Mahlon Avenue. It was confirmed that there were bungalows on three corners and a 2-storey building on the fourth corner; there were further examples of a similar pattern at other junctions along Edwards Avenue therefore this was deemed to be acceptable for the application site.

Members commented that the proposed development appeared to conform with Council policy; it was compatible with the surrounding street scene, there were no overlooking or rights of light issues and the parking was adequate.

The officer's recommendation was moved and seconded. Upon being put to a vote, seven Members voted in favour with one abstention.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved subject to the addendum;

2)    That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to add a further condition relating to additional windows and doors.