Agenda item

Erection of two new flats and a new build, subterranean dwelling, with associated landscaping and parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officers recommendations.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed presentation outlining the proposals. It was highlighted that an appeal on the grounds of non-determination had been received and therefore the decision making powers had passed from the Local Planning Authority over to the Planning Inspectorate. However, should an appeal not have been received, the application would have been recommended for refusal.

A petition had been received objecting to the application and the lead petitioner had submitted a statement to be read to the Committee. Key point raised in the statement included:

·       It was highlighted that 155 people living within the adjacent vicinity of the site had signed the petition objecting to the proposals.

·       There was parking provision for only two vehicles on site, meaning occupiers and visitors would inevitably add to the parking pressures experienced on Albert Road causing more congestion and inconvenience.

·       The proposed entrance and hallway to Flat C of the proposals from North Hyde Road was protruding from the existing building lines of both Albert Road and North Hyde Road properties.

·       The proposals would permanently remove the existing green area which was deemed harmful to the environment.

·       The refuse bin store for the proposed Flat A would be situated on the front building line of number five Albert Road which was deemed unhygienic and would cause a bad odour to adjacent occupiers.

·       The proposals would result in a loss of natural light to the occupiers of number five Albert Road.

The applicant and the agent were in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points raised in their address included:

·       To give the site some context, it was highlighted to be opposite a large supermarket store and on a street where there was no breakup of the properties. It was also deemed that the loss of the green area that the site was situated on would be deemed acceptable to provide housing as required.

·       The sub-terranean dwelling was unique in design and the applicant had endeavoured to ensure the property utilised as much of the land as possible whilst retaining as much of the greenery of the site as possible, whilst also attempting to ensure the property was in keeping with the context of the local area.

·       With regard to the recommended refusal reason based on the harm caused due to the adjacent approved development, it was deemed that this was slightly unfair as this application had been submitted almost six months before the application of the adjacent approved development.

·       On the matter of an oversupply of parking, the applicant was happy to omit the provided parking given the good PTAL score of the area.

·       The applicant was happy to also provide a basement impact assessment.

The Committee discussed the levels of privacy and overlooking between the proposed dwellings, to which the applicant noted that amendments could be made to the plans in order to mitigate these impacts. Officers noted that there was a concern with the principle of developing the site in terms of its effect on adjacent dwellings and the openness of the site, this view was also held by the Planning Inspectorate through earlier appeals which had been received with regard to this site. It was also noted that any small amendments would not overcome these larger scale concerns.

Members discussed the proximity of the basement dwelling to the nearby railway line and sought clarification on whether there could be a vibration or noise issue upon future occupants. Officers confirmed that, given the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the railway line, they were satisfied that there would be no undue harm in terms of noise or vibrations caused.

The Committee highlighted that given the application in front of them, they were in agreement with the officers recommended reasons for refusal, specifically noting the potential flood risk and the lack of basement impact assessment  and, as a whole, they were unable to support the proposals. The officers recommendations for refusal were proposed, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That should an appeal on the grounds of non-determination not have been lodged, that the application would have been refused as per officers recommendations.