Agenda item

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores.

Officers presented the application. It was considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The forward position of the bins, loss of trees, increased pressure on street parking, harm to protected species, lack of cycle store parking spaces and failure to meet the needs of those with disabilities were additional matters of concern and the application was recommended for refusal.

A petition had been received in objection to the proposal and a written submission from a petitioner was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The design of the proposed buildings was inconsistent with the street scene. Beacon Close was a quiet cul-de-sac comprising large family homes;

·         The proposals represented over-development of the site with restricted amenity space;

·         The footprint of the development would encroach on the existing garden space of 19 Beacon Close and would result in the destruction of a large tree;

·         The development would have an excessively large hard standing area to the front to create parking and bin storage areas;

The petitioner suggested the following additional reasons for refusal:

·         the development could result in 6-10 additional cars using the road and seeking parking spaces. Increased vehicle traffic in the road would have safety and nuisance implications;

·         there would be overlooking from the development into the rear garden of 24 Beacon Close;

·         the proposal would result in increased demand for parking in direct conflict with the U8 Parking Management Scheme;

·         there would be additional noise, disruption and traffic congestion linked to the demolition and construction phases of the project;

·         the presence of construction plant and vehicles would obstruct the turning circle at the end of the cul-de-sac and prevent larger vehicles from turning around.

Ward Councillor Keith Burrows was in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal and in support of petitioners. He observed that Beacon Close was a quiet cul-de-sac and many residents had lived there for decades. The proposal appeared to be for financial gain only and would be unacceptable due to its size and appearance. Pressure on parking would be an issue and Councillor Burrows had concerns regarding the bin sheds to the front and the cycle storage. He requested that the application be refused.

Councillors sought further clarification regarding the reasons for refusal proposed by the petitioner in her written submission. It was confirmed that parking concerns had already been addressed in refusal reason number 5. The impact on 24 Beacon Close was not considered materially harmful since a degree of mutual overlooking was common in urban areas. With regard to the noise of the construction site, it was reported that, if approved, a construction management plan would mitigate this by way of condition.

Committee Members felt the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site. There would be insufficient provision for those with disabilities and it would result in increased pressure on parking. Moreover, the proposed development would not harmonise with the local area and street scene.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.