Agenda item

Erection of a five-bedroom detached bungalow, including three bedrooms in roofspace, with associated parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

Erection of a five-bedroom detached bungalow, including three bedrooms in roofspace, with associated parking and landscaping.

56032/APP/2010/2111

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a five-bedroom detached bungalow at the land rear and forming part of 63, 65 and 67 Lowlands Road.  The officer report statedthe proposal was for a single detached bungalow (with habitable roof space).

Whilst the development would comply with relevant Council Standards relating to internal living space and external amenity space, it was considered that the proposal would be out of keeping with the surrounding pattern of residential development, resulting in a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

It was also considered that should the application receive consent it would set an undesirable precedent for other proposals in the vicinity of a similar nature, which the Council would find difficult resist. In addition, to these considerations, given that a legal agreement at this stage had not been offered or secured, and due to the shortfall of places in nurseries/schools/educational facilities serving the area the proposal was considered to be contrary to relevant UDP Saved Policies September 2007, London Plan and national policies.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Lead petitioner Ms Lesley Crowcroft presented the petition on behalf of the petitioners who had signed the petition objecting to the application. 
• Ms Crowcroft had spoken several times on this matter during the last 10 years.
• It was stated that the applicant only owned the one property, so 1/3 of the proposed development land.
• That the applicant had appealed on this site and numerous other sites, unsuccessfully.
• That this current application had made no attempt to get life time home assurance.
• Ms Crowcroft questioned the lighting in the bedrooms, stating that 3 double bedrooms only had roof lights and that this would not adequate. That a request for dormers windows may come if the application was approved.
• She asked Committee to uphold the officer’s report and recommendations.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Members asked for clarification on the bedroom lighting. Officers stated that there were windows for the bedrooms in the plans, and not just the roof lights. Members also asked about life time home assurance. Officers stated that the size of the property was sufficient and with internal changes that it could be made to fit. Members commented on garden grabbing and that this sort of application was what the legislation was designed to prevent.  

Members commented on the numerous applications that had been submitted on this site. They asked officers if they could turn away any further applications. Officers and the Committee’s Legal Advisor stated that this matter went to appeal and the decision was upheld by the Inspector the Council could now turn away further applications for a 2-year period. The Legal Advisor stated that there were requirements in legislation regarding this that needed to be fulfilled before this could occur. The legislation framework allowed the Council to reject further applications for a 2-year period. This was assuming the inspectorate supported this decision.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be refused.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.