Agenda item

Demolition and reconstruction of new build family home. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the amendments to Condition 4 and the inclusion of a new Condition as detailed in the Addendum Report.

Demolition and reconstruction of new build family home.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information set out in the addendum. It was noted that the application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·         The lead petitioner had lived on Fraser Ave, Australia for 55 years.

·         He represented 32 residents who had signed a petition against the demolition of a two-storey house and the construction of a three-storey house.

·         The proposed development would negatively impact the Area of Special Local Character and street scene.

·         The development would result in a three-storey house next to a bungalow, which was not in keeping with the area's character.

·         The area predominantly consisted of bungalows and two-storey houses with one-metre spaces between boundaries.

·         There was a concern that new large houses may later be converted into houses of multiple occupation.

·         Petitioners urged the Council to reject the application for 44 Fraser Ave to preserve the area's special character.

·         If the application could not be refused, he requested that the decision be deferred, and the site visited to enable Members to see for themselves the area's special character.

In response to Members’ questions, the lead petitioner confirmed that rooflights were being tiled over at some houses along Frays Avenue.

The applicant / agent were not in attendance.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

• Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.
• The proposed development was different from any other property in the Garden City and would deliver a building out of character in terms of excessive bulk, scale, and design.
• The officer's report showed the height of the proposed building matching others, but none had the huge side dormer mentioned in paragraph 7.141.
• The proposed building created a large living space on the 3rd floor, contrary to the area's special local character, which only allowed single or two-story buildings.
• Approval of the planning application had the potential to set a precedent for other two-story properties in the area to be extended upwards using side dormers.
• Paragraph 7.9 stated that there was a proposed gap between numbers 44 and the neighbouring 46 of some 1.5 meters, this did not accord with the drawings which showed a gap of less than one metre.
• The existing attractive 3-bedroom family home of 172 square meters was to be replaced by the proposed building of 316 square meters, an increase of 84%.
• The Committee was requested to refuse the unacceptable planning application.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Ward Councillor acknowledged that the area had changed significantly over the last 20 or 30 years. However, it was noted that the local Residents’ Association supported the continuation of the Area of Special Local Character. It was reported that, in recent years, there had been a dramatic increase in the numbers of houses converting loft areas into a 3^rd storey; this did not accord with the character of the local area which predominantly comprised one and two storey buildings. The Ward Councillor observed that the plans were unclear, and it was not possible to ascertain the number of bedrooms proposed or what the additional floor area would be used for.

Officers addressed some of the concerns that had been raised. It was clarified that the property was actually not a three-storey dwelling but a two-storey dwelling. The height of the development was similar to the two properties next door and to an existing property further along the street.

It was noted that a dormer could legitimately be constructed to the side of the property and did not constitute a robust reason for refusal. Permitted development rights were restricted in areas with heritage assets or conservation areas, but this area was not a heritage asset and PD rights had not been removed. Members heard that the property was not operating as an HMO and the proposed development added one additional bedroom to the existing three-bedroom property. The Committee was informed that the scale, bulk, and mass of the dwelling were comparable to existing properties in the street. Officers noted that the planning inspector had been on site next door and had overturned the Council's decision to impose a condition on the development. The development was considered acceptable as it did not impact the character of the street scene and the scale of the building was not considered excessive from a planning perspective.

Members enquired whether it would be possible to add a condition to protect residents and ensure the property was not converted to an HMO in the future. In response, officers confirmed that the proposed design would not be suitable for use as a small HMO and the imposition of a condition could be deemed to be unreasonable. Any further changes to the proposed, such as conversion to two flats, would require additional planning permission. The Legal Advisor stated that the imposition of an HMO condition would have to pass all six parts of the required test; to deviate from this would run the risk of an appeal.

In response to further questions from Councillors it was confirmed that the proposed parking arrangements were deemed to be adequate.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with four Councillors voting in favour, one against and two abstentions.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the amendments to Condition 4 and the inclusion of a new Condition as detailed in the Addendum Report.