Agenda item

Erection of 4 dwellings with associated parking, new crossover and all external works.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the item be deferred for further re-consultation.

Erection of 4 dwellings with associated parking, new crossover and all external works.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that a site visit had taken place on Friday 15 November 2019. Further to the visit, the plan on page 236 of the pack had been superseded and needed to be removed. The tree officer had commented that the planned development would not have a detrimental impact on the street tree. In relation to the electricity sub-station, a route into the sub-station had been secured which would ensure continuity of service. A condition had been added to stipulate that the materials used would match those of the surrounding residential properties and would not comprise render. Members were advised that overlooking to the school playground would be minimal.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. It was stated that the application site had previously formed part of Whiteheath Junior School land.  The petitioner commented that school budgets were tight and the proposed development was short-sighted as, at some point in the future, it was likely that the school would need to be expanded further. Residents were concerned that the addition of four houses on a relatively small piece of land would result in over-development of the site. The Committee was informed that there were currently no terraced houses along Whiteheath Avenue therefore the proposed development would not be in keeping with the existing street scene. Moreover, concern was expressed that the proposed dormer windows would be front-facing; this would not be in keeping with the existing houses.

Additional concerns were expressed regarding potential overlooking to the school playground which was a safeguarding concern –the children’s safety was of paramount importance. Moreover, it was felt that the proposed development would exacerbate traffic stress in the area, particularly at school drop off / pick up times. A petition had previously been submitted expressing concerns regarding road safety; it was a dead-end road and there was little space to turn.

Ward Councillor Devi Radia was in attendance and declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as she was a Governor of Whiteheath Infant School; it was thought the Infant School had been consulted regarding the application. As a result, Councillor Radia did not speak on this item but remained in the gallery during the discussion. 

Members commented that they were concerned regarding the impact of the proposal on the street scene. It was noted that terraced houses were a-typical and not in keeping with the area. Moreover, concerns were raised that the massing to the front would be out of kilter with the rest of the street. It was felt that the impact to number 1 could be considerable; however, it was unclear what the impact of the large wall would be, particularly in relation to overshadowing and sunlight – this was not detailed in the officer’s report. Additionally, the Committee was concerned that the use of dormers to the front was not in keeping with the street scene and could set a dangerous precedent.

Councillors noted that the side windows to the first floor were not clearly indicated on the plan on page 240 of the pack. It was stated that windows to habitable rooms were to be of obscure glass but there was no mention of non-openers. Moreover, it was noted that property number 1 as shown on page 235 of the plans pack did not mirror the shape of the buildings on the OS sheet; as a result of this it was suggested that the 45? line indicated could be inaccurate – this was a critical point. Members expressed considerable concern regarding apparent inaccuracies on the plans. Revised plans and a daylight / sunlight report were requested and it was recommended that the item be deferred for further re-consultation. The petitioners were advised that their speaking rights on the petition had been now used, therefore they would need to submit a further petition should they wish to address the Committee again.

A recommendation to defer this item was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED That: the item be deferred for further re-consultation regarding clarification of plans and a request for a daylight / sunlight report.