Agenda item

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that planning permission for a similar scheme had been refused by the Borough Planning Committee in January 2023 citing eight reasons for refusal. Refusal reasons relating to ecology, accessibility, cycle parking and a tree had been overcome in the current application. However, Members heard that refusal reasons relating to overdevelopment of the site, harm to the character and appearance of the area and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure highways works and prohibit the issuing of parking permits to prospective residents had not been resolved. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

A petition had been received by Democratic Services in objection to the scheme. The lead petitioner’s written representation was read out for the consideration of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         A previous application for a similar proposed development at the site had been refused for eight compelling reasons;

·         Despite a number of minor cosmetic changes, no change of substance were proposed in the current application before the Committee;

·         The current application sought to replace a detached single storey bungalow with four terraced houses, each comprising two storeys and containing three bedrooms hence being capable of accommodating five occupants;

·         Petitioners welcomed the four valid reasons for refusal proposed by officers in the report;

·         The design of the proposed new buildings was completely inconsistent with the street scene;

·         The proposal represented a gross over-development of the site;

·         The proposal sought to create an excessively large hard standing area to the front of the boundary to create parking and bin storage areas. This was inconsistent with the character of neighbouring properties and the street scene;

·         Three additional reasons for refusal were proposed in relation to: 1) the increase in traffic which would result if the proposal were to go ahead (particularly given the low PTAL rating of the site and the absence of viable public transport facilities); 2) increased demand for parking and 3) disruption and traffic congestion resulting from the demolition and construction phases of the project;

·         Beacon Close was a quite residential street. Residents had invested in their homes and had the right to expect their way of life not to be disrupted by a scheme designed solely for financial gain.

The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         In the current application a number of the concerns previously raised had been addressed namely ecology, internal layout and tree matters;

·         The proposals did not conflict with development plan policies;

·         The first proposed reason for refusal in the report related to failure to harmonise with the street scene. These comments were misleading and did not reflect the current pattern of development. On entering Beacon Close from Harefield Road there were four terraced dwellings and some semi-detached properties. To the south, Beacon Close was characterised by detached dwellings with gable roofs and traditional materials. Terraced and detached properties were therefore a common theme along the road and the proposed design would mirror the existing dwellings with gable roofs and soft planting. The erection of a similar end of terraced dwelling in another part of the Close had been approved by Planning officers. The applicant’s proposed dwellings would fit well with the wider street scene;

·         The second reason for refusal referenced the building line. The property had only one immediate neighbour. An amended plan submitted had demonstrated that the dwellings would be in line with this property not further forward and set back further than other semi-detached dwellings in the vicinity. The development would be 1m deeper than no.24 therefore building line not broken;

·         The third reason for refusal referred to the absence of a legal agreement. A legal agreement had been prepared and submitted securing highways contributions to which the applicant would make financial contributions. Highways comments were largely favourable;

·         The site was misunderstood and was 25m wide. Harvil Road was similar to Beacon Close and had previously had only detached dwellings. A development of seven flats and semi-detached houses had been built in recent years - the character of a road could evolve over time.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant stated that there were currently only two bungalows in the street and the proposed development would sit nicely next to the neighbouring bungalow and abutting the semi-detached properties.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding the S106 legal agreement, it was explained that, as detailed on page 33 of the agenda pack, had officers been minded to recommend that the application be approved, a legal agreement to secure the necessary obligations would have been secured.

Members sought further clarification as to the viability of the additional reasons for refusal as proposed by the petitioner. In respect of traffic implications, it was confirmed that these were not considered significant enough to warrant an additional reason for refusal. The Parking Management Scheme matter was covered by condition number 4 and construction impacts would be temporary.

Members commented that the proposal constituted overdevelopment of the site and would be harmful to the character of the area and the street scene. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.