Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 x self-contained units including 1 x studio unit, 2 x 1-bed units and 1 x 3-bed unit with associated landscaping, parking, refuse and recycling.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Officers introduced the application.

Officers highlighted an addendum, which noted that one additional letter of objection had been received objecting on the grounds of loss of privacy.

A representative of the petitioner addended and addressed the Committee. The representative noted that there were concerns with this re-application, and that there had been limited resident engagement. It was raised that none of the neighbours had received letters about the application, and only a chance meeting outside the development notified residents about the application. Officers clarified that while letters had been sent out in the usual manner, once officers had been notified that residents had not received these, letters were re-sent. The 45-degree line was infringed for No. 16 Iver Lane. Parking manoeuvrers were not sufficiently demonstrated, especially for the disabled parking bay, which was close to the footpath. Some of the obscured glazed windows on the side elevations were non-opening at 1.8M above ground level, which was a concern. It had been noted that the site was not within 20 meters of a river – it was clarified that this was not correct as the River Pinn with within 12 meters, and no flood risks assessment had taken place. There was a concern over increased noise levels, and a semi-detached house would be more suitable than the current application.

Members questioned if the petitioner could look out of the window, and it was clarified that the window in question was an obscured glazed window, which allowed some daylight but there was no outlook.

A statement from Councillor Burrows as Ward Councillor was read out. Councillor Burrows fully supported the residents of Iver Lane in their objection to the application, as the bulk and design, although changed, did not change anything from the previous objections and refusal by this Committee. The bulk size would not improve the quality of the public realm or respect the current local character of this are and the current dwellings. There would still be issues for Number 16 Iver Lane. It must also be remembered that this area was in the Colne Valley Archaeological priority area and the Cowley Lock conservation area to the south and this application would still impact upon them. This area was already pressured for space and this development would only add to this. Councillor Burrows’ statement urged the Committee to side with the residents and refuse this new application and not accept the approval being put forward.

Councillor Burrows’ statement also drew attention to a typo in the report, which referred to:

"Completion of a legal agreement to ensure that future residents of the three units not being provided with on-site parking cannot apply for a permit to join any parking management scheme".

Officers clarified that this should have read:

“Completion of a legal agreement to ensure that future residents of the three units being provided with on-site parking cannot apply for a permit to join any parking management scheme".

The Chairman noted the five refusal reasons on the previous application.

Members suggested there was little difference between this application and the previously refused application. Officers noted the three windows and the reduced size compared to the previous application. Also, the dormer was noted, and the roof line was 1.2 meters higher on the previous application. Members also asked about the impact on the conservation area. Officers noted that the site was not in the conservation area, but directly opposite it. The application would not adversely affect the street scene. Members also asked about the occupied land change in size. Officers noted that the footprint doubled in size, although the existing site had a small footprint and neighbours have a similar size to the proposed development, so there were no concerns. It was noted that the flat roof was a change to the original proposal.

Members questioned the loss of light and overlooking nature, and if these were material considerations. Officers noted the 45-degree line for 16 Iver Lane. It was noted that there was no amenity reason for refusal. It was further noted that there was a condition around side windows, so there would be no overlooking. The condition of “the west facing side windows to the ground floor of the development are to be non-obscure glazed” was noted. On windows, there was a condition that “the first floor side facing windows shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale four on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 meters taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence.”

The Chairman noted that there was roughly a 7.22% reduction in square metres; a height reduction from 9.5 to 8.5 meters; the width was unchanged; and the dormers were removed, compared to the previously refused application. In relation to proximity to the nearby river, officers noted that the Environment Agency had been consulted and reported no issues, and there was a condition on drainage. It was further noted that the changes from the previously submitted application had meant that bulk size was no longer a valid reason for refusal. In reference to parking provision, officers noted that the proposal was in line with the London Plan standard.

Officers suggested a site visit in order to see the site in relation to the nearby conservation area.

Deferring for a site visit was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site visit.