Agenda item

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit and to request a further daylight / sunlight review.

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that some additional objections had been received in respect of the application, but no new concerns had been raised.

Members heard that the large oak tree to the rear of the site was protected by a TPO. There was a mix of housing along Parkfield Road and quite a few replacement buildings including numbers 29, 54 and 55; the principle of replacement dwellings was therefore acceptable. The height and scale of the proposed development was similar to that at number 29. On balance, it was considered that the proposed design of the development would not cause harm to the overall character of the area or to the amenity of the neighbours. The application was recommended for approval.

Two petitions had been submitted in objection to the application. The Chair noted that, on this occasion, both petitioners would be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each due to some late notification to one of the petitioners regarding the meeting. However, the Chair usually exercised his discretion where there were multiple petitions on the same application and reserved his right to reduce the speaking times.

The lead petitioner for the first petition was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·       The new owners had purchased no. 39 Parkfield Road a year previously but had never actually lived at the property. Strangers used the property and came and went at random – it was essentially already an HMO;

·       It appeared that the property had been purchased as a commercial investment only rather than to be used as a family home;

·       No. 39 was located between four bungalows with five bungalows opposite and the proposal was not in keeping with the street scene;

·       The documents and plans submitted by the applicant were inaccurate;

·       Proposed off-street parking provision would be inadequate;

·       Planning officers had stated that the proposal complied with BRE guidelines. The consultant had chosen sections which benefited the applicant but the BRE should be considered in its entirety;

·       The findings of the daylight / sunlight report were disputed as they vastly underestimated the impact of the construction and the light remaining thereafter. The application site was surrounded by elderly neighbours who needed more light. All windows at no. 41 should be included in the calculations;

·       The drawings were inaccurate. The Council should at least independently verify the calculations taking into account all loss of light to all windows and rooms;

·       It would not be possible to construct the building as planned – the roof ridge would need to be extended or the velux windows lowered;

·       Hidden heights had not been allowed for and would increase the height indicated in the diagrams. The diagrams had been prepared with a lack of care and attention and included inaccuracies e.g. no. 43 had not been drawn to scale;

·       Petitioners requested refusal of the application or deferral for a site visit.

Members enquired whether the lead petitioner had been able to have any open dialogue with the owners. It was confirmed that this had not been possible as the owners did not live at the property, and he had only met them twice.

The second petitioner had submitted a written representation which was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       Number 39’s design had been modelled on number 29’s;

·       Small sympathetic developments in Parkfield Road had led an erosion of the street scene. Recent developments had ignored agreed conditions and plans and future developers built even more dominant houses;

·       The ‘emerging street scene’ was wholly unwelcome;

·       Parkfield was a majority bungalow street with the four original 2-storey buildings being set in large plots so neighbours could enjoy natural sunlight. Residents had paid a premium for their houses as the bungalows were private, light and sunny at all times;

·       The first developments to disrupt the street scene had been 31a and 31b – a visiting Councillor had remarked that the developments should not have been approved;

·       Number 43 was then extended with changes to roof pitch, height and inclusion of rear dormer windows which had not been approved. It now cast shadow and overlooked neighbours and was due for planning enforcement investigation;

·       Number 29 had been passed on appeal. However, the plans submitted to the planning inspector had been confusing – particularly that showing the street scene which suggested no.29 was the same height as 31a;

·       The planning inspector had stated that the roof space at no.29 was not to be habitable and no windows were to be installed. This had been ignored and the roof space housed another bedroom with many windows. The bays at the front had been widened, roof height raised, and the front bay’s hipped roof exchanged for gable ends. The result was a large, intimidating building which overlooked neighbours;

·       No. 39 had been modelled on this illegal building which was due to be investigated by the Planning Enforcement team;

·       Planning permission for no. 39 should be refused or at least delayed pending enforcement investigation at no.29.

Ward Councillor Martin Goddard was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Councillor Goddard stated that, given that there appeared to be material doubts about the application, it would not be appropriate to approve it. The doubts related to 1) the accuracy and reliability of the plans, 2) the reliability of the daylight / sunlight assessment and 3) the question as to whether or not the agreed plans for number 29 had been adhered to – this needed to be investigated further. Councillor Goddard was of the opinion that, if the application were not to be refused, the matter should at least be adjourned for a site visit. If the application were to be approved, the addition of further conditions were recommended to ensure the premises could not be used as an HMO, hostel or Airbnb in the future, to restrict further permitted development rights and to ensure set construction hours were adhered to.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that officers were happy with the daylight / sunlight report. A professional report funded by the applicant could be arranged if needed. Members were informed that daylight / sunlight reports were carried out by professional experts and were not routinely verified by officers. Officers conducted a site inspection to see the layout of existing buildings and, if any discrepancies were identified, these would be raised with the applicant.

The Committee requested further clarification in relation to the concerns regarding dimensions raised by petitioners. It was confirmed that officers had reviewed all these comments. With regard to the proposed rooflights, it was confirmed that further details would be sought by condition to ensure the siting of the rooflights on the side elevations was consistent across all the drawings. Members were informed that, on average, the proposed doors were approximately 2m in height. Should the overall height of the dwelling be changed, this would require further planning permission.  No new dwelling in the roof was proposed so there was no requirement for 2.5m floor to ceiling space - this could be slightly smaller to fit with the depicted height on the plan. It was confirmed that, should the finished development be significantly larger than every other dwelling in the street, this would not be consistent with the plans.

Members raised concerns regarding the potential use as an HMO. Officers advised that this matter had not been addressed in the report as it was considered that the impact would be largely the same whether the development were used as an HMO or a occupied by a larger family.

In reply to further questions from the Committee, Members heard that a planning enforcement investigation had been conducted at number 29 which had revealed that the development had been built in accordance with the agreed plans; no further action had been taken. It was confirmed that the proposed garage was deemed to be large enough to accommodate a car.

Given the speculation regarding the dimensions, the proximity to other properties and concerns regarding the sunlight / daylight report, Members proposed a deferment for a site visit and requested a further daylight / sunlight report approved by a third party.

A deferment for a site visit and a further daylight / sunlight report approved by a third party was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 6 Members voting in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit and to request a further daylight / sunlight review.