Agenda item

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed end-of-terraced dwelling involving partial demolition of existing garage.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to explore the possibility of drafting an additional reason for refusal in relation to orientation and the 45° angle to habitable windows.

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed end-of-terraced dwelling involving partial demolition of existing garage

Officers introduced the application noting that it complied with planning policy in many respects. However, the application was recommended for refusal as the proposed development would be forward of the building line and its width would not be in keeping with the street scene. Issues regarding parking were highlighted as it was felt that an inadequate level of off-street parking was proposed. Members heard that the development would also have a negative impact on protected trees.

A written representation on behalf of the applicant was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

External design

·       The eastern side of De Salis Road (where the site was positioned) comprised a terrace of two storey properties of similar external appearance;

·       As De Salis Road turned in a southerly direction towards Uxbridge Road, the terrace displayed a visually interesting stepped and varied building line;

·       The front projection of the proposed new building would be set forward 6m of the existing building to respond positively to the unique building line of terraced properties on the eastern side of De Salis Road to the north and to provide a visual termination point at the southern end of the terrace – this replicated the stepped approach adopted at the northern end;

·       The proposed dwelling would respond positively to the visual character and appearance of the terrace and wider streetscene; and

·       The proposed dwelling would respond positively to the two-storey scale and height of the adjoining property and other properties forming part of the wider terrace and streetscene. The development represented a high-quality interpretation of the visual character and built form of the streetscene in accordance with Local Plan Policy DMHG11.

Impact on Trees

·       The applicant had submitted a professional Tree Report which demonstrated that it would be possible to carry out the development without removing any existing trees. The Council’s Tree Officer was in agreement with this; and

·       Since there were no windows on the proposed southern side elevation, there would be no pressure from occupiers to remove the trees in the future. It would be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis.

Parking

·       Space for 2 off road car parking spaces would be retained within the front curtilage of 2 De Salis Road – in accordance with required standards for a 3-bed property;

·       Space would be provided within the front curtilage of the new 2-bed dwelling for a single parking space in accordance with the Council’s parking standards; and

·       Paragraph 109 of the NPPF stated that development should only be prevented on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. There was no justification to refuse the scheme on highways grounds.

Members expressed concern regarding the proposal observing that the site was too small for such a development. It was also felt that the application site was too close to nearby trees and parking was inadequate. It was noted that the proposed building would be totally in front of the adjoining property and this was considered unacceptable.

The Committee pointed out that orientation was a matter of further concern in this case. The development site was north facing hence the proposal could lead to overshadowing and an unacceptable sunlight / daylight impact to neighbouring properties. The 45° angle to habitable windows was also raised as a potential area of concern which required further exploration. At the request of Members, it was agreed that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to explore the possibility of drafting an additional reason for refusal in relation to orientation and the 45° angle to habitable windows.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the exploration of an additional reason for refusal as discussed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to explore the possibility of drafting an additional reason for refusal in relation to orientation and the 45° angle to habitable windows.