Agenda item

Demolition of garages and the erection of 4 x 3 bedroom dwellinghouses with associated parking and landscaping

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the addendum. The application sought planning permission for the demolition of garages and the erection of 4 x 3 bedroom dwellinghouses with associated parking and landscaping. It was confirmed that this application had been presented to Committee on 21 November 2018 but was deferred for a site visit. Further to the site visit, the officer's report had been amended to address the concerns raised by Members regarding waste collection. In addition to this, three arboricultural officers had visited the site and a full report had been prepared. The Committee was shown an overshadowing impact diagram which indicated that the development would result in some shadowing for a limited period during the day. It was confirmed that a tree plan had been prepared; some trees would be removed while some would be protected.

Councillor Mills, Ward Councillor for Brunel, spoke in objection to the application claiming that the issues raised previously had not been resolved satisfactorily. Councillor Mills stated that the overshadowing diagram clearly indicated that there would be a detrimental impact on residents and expressed concern that the development would abut directly up to the rear of residents' gardens.  The Committee was informed that the garages had not been in use for approximately 18 months therefore the proposed development would result in a significant increase in traffic.

Committee Members enquired how the potential for an increase in traffic could be determined. It was confirmed that there was no set benchmark for this. Officers looked at what was historically associated with a given site and then considered the impact of a proposed development. In this case, it was estimated that there would be less trip rates associated with the proposed development than with the existing garages.

Members expressed further concern regarding overshadowing and the proximity to current houses. In places there was a distance of only 15m between habitable properties which it was claimed would lead to a perception of overlooking. Further clarification was requested regarding the rules relating to overshadowing. It was confirmed that, to constitute a reason for refusal, the impact of overshadowing would need to apply for a considerable part of the day rather than only for a couple of hours. It was confirmed that the overshadowing impact diagram had been completed accurately and complied with BRE guidance.

Members commented that the application appeared to be policy compliant on the whole but was very dominant nonetheless. The 2m height variation between Worcester Road and Clammas Way and the boundary treatment at the site were additional areas of concern. It was suggested that a boundary wall would be more efficient than the proposed wooden fence. Councillors expressed concern that the difference in levels meant the development would impact the residents of Worcester Road considerably more than those in Clammas Way. Members were reassured that the development site itself was flat and level; the proposed houses would be built at the current level.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that it would be difficult to justify over-dominance as a sole reason for refusal if the development was policy compliant.

Members proposed that the officer's recommendation be overturned and the application be refused on the grounds of scale, height, bulk and impact on the existing residents of Worcester Road.

A motion to overturn the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved unanimously.

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.