Agenda item

Replacement of existing buildings with a 2.5 storey building comprising 5 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossover to front

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Replacement of existing buildings with a 2.5 storey building comprising 5 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the application was recommended for approval. The proposal was deemed to be well-designed, well-prepared and of high quality. It was considered that the development would not be detrimental to the amenity of local residents and would not be harmful to the Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The Committee was informed that Highways officers, Conservation officers and Tree & Landscape officers had raised no objections to the scheme. Thorough reports had been submitted in relation to the basement, daylight and sunlight, water, trees and flood management.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of petitioners objecting to the application. Key points included:

·       The proposed development was a threat to the local area;

·       Approval of such a development would set a precedent for future developments;

·       The proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the ASLC;

·       The intensification of the site to create a new build of 8 flats, in a bulky building constructed very close to both side boundaries, would fail to harmonise with the other properties which were mainly detached single family houses;

·       The proximity to neighbouring properties would be detrimental to immediate neighbours and the local environment;

·       The increase in the number of vehicles would create further parking stress and present a safety risk;

·       The proposed building would adversely impact the outlook and daylight of properties in Foxdell and Firs Walk and would infringe on the rights of residents by directly overlooking them;

·       The 10% flat redevelopment principle should not apply in an ASLC;

·       A related proposal at 5 & 6 Firs Walk sought to significantly increase the density of that site; the two proposals represented gross over-development;

·       The strain on existing services, particularly water supply and drainage, would negatively impact on existing properties;

·       Petitioners had not been adequately consulted during the application process.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of the agent for the application. Key points included:

·       The proposal was policy compliant;

·       Gavacan Homes had worked closely with planning officers for over a year to establish an acceptable scheme;

·       A Heritage specialist who was also a former Historic England Inspector and trained architect had been commissioned to assist in addressing concerns raised by the Conservation Officer in relation to the previous design and its relationship with the neighbouring locally listed building and the ASLC;

·       A high-quality development was now proposed which respected the historic setting, introduced a new building sympathetic to the original and to the Dene Road frontage and created a landscape regime that added to the area’s verdancy;

·       Planning officers were in support of the new design and the Conservation Officer had commended it;

·       The proposed development delivered a number of benefits including better use of the site by providing a net increase of 7 units, a mix of housing including family sized accommodation and units which exceeded minimum space standards;

·       The proposal would not result in more than 10% of properties in Dene Road being redeveloped into flats;

·       The building would be no further forward than the existing and the roof line would be the same height;

·       The site had capacity to accommodate the proposal – parking and amenity provision complied with local standards and all units would receive plentiful daylight and sunlight;

·       The building footprint sat well within the 45-degree lines of the neighbouring properties to protect them from overshadowing and loss of privacy;

·       13 parking spaces were proposed, including Blue Badge and Electric Vehicle provision and the increase in traffic would be minimal;

·       A Construction Management Plan would be approved prior to the commencement of works at the site.

With reference to the nearby conversion to a flatted development referred to by the petitioner, Members enquired how many additional flats were proposed at that site. The Head of Planning was unable to confirm definitively but indications suggested there would be 5 flats.

The Committee welcomed the inclusion of 3-bed family homes at the application site. Members enquired how the current proposal differed to previous proposals which had been rejected. It was confirmed that the current proposed development was smaller and further from the boundary with neighbouring properties. The proposal complied with policy in all respects.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that obscure glazed screens to balconies would be incorporated to ensure there was no overlooking. Members heard that the majority of the proposed quality control conditions had yet to be discharged. In respect of drainage, Councillors were reassured that a comprehensive report on this matter had been received.

Members enquired whether flatted developments were allowed in an Area of Special Local Character. It was confirmed that these were not prohibited provided they enhanced the area and the design was of high quality. The Committee heard that the proposal would not exceed the 10% policy in respect of flatted developments.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the Flood and Water Management Officer had requested a detailed report and had been satisfied with the proposal.

Members supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the scheme which was high quality and policy-compliant. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.