Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24 April 2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two-storey, part first-floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include two rear rooflights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24/04/2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two-storey, part first-floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include two rear rooflights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element).

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which included an amendment to Condition 8.

A petitioner addressed the Committee on behalf of Gatehill Residents’ Association, and stated that the application should be rejected. Members were informed that lightwells were not a part of the street scene and would lead to light pollution, the retractable glass roof would allow light to escape and the light spill and illumination would harm neighbouring amenity. Councillors were informed that the proposal would fill in the gap with No 53, and this would affect the stability of nearby properties and drainage with no space for surface water to run-off, and the petitioner stated that the design was not compliant with the NPPF 2018.

Members noted that the property size would be an increase from 295 sq.m to 365 sq.m, and expressed concerns over the size of the basement area, drainage, the impact on the environment, and hours of construction work.

Officers confirmed that currently there was not a policy regarding basements in the Borough, but this will be emerging in the future, and noted that light from the front lightwell would not harm neighbouring amenities as planting would make it barely visible. The Committee heard that the courtyard was below ground level, but did have a glass roof that would lead to light pollution, although it was not clear if this would be more light pollution that is normal from ground or first floor windows.

The Head of Planning, Transport and Regeneration confirmed that there was no policy on basement sizes as this was a very new premise that was more popular in cities. Members expressed concern that, even though the basement was sunk into the ground, it was still too bulky and the light pollution from the lightwells and basement may have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

The Committee noted that the basement would be close to the boundary line and could lead to flooding concerns, and officers stated that while it was not touching the boundary line, it was closer than previous applications, although there were no objections from the relevant flooding officer.

Councillors agreed that the cumulative impact of the application was excessive, and the Legal Advisor confirmed that, while there were no grounds for refusal based on policy regarding basements, bulk and the cumulative impact of the application were both subjective and could be grounds for refusal.

Members commented that the depth of the courtyard in the garden was too much, and difficult to approve, and there was concern that the lightwells to the side and rear could lead to light pollution that could not be overcome with planting. There was also concern that the application would detract from the greenery of the Area of Special Character.

The Committee moved and seconded a motion to refuse the application, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to finalise the reasons for refusal in conjunction with the Chairman and Labour Lead Member, due to the bulk of the application, and also potentially on lighting and landscaping of the rear and side of the application, and the effect this had on the Area of Special Character.

Upon being put to a vote, the motion to refuse the application was passed, with six Councillors voting in favour, and two Councillors abstaining.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to confirm the reasons for refusal with the Chairman and Labour Lead Member.