Agenda item

Part two, two and a half and three storey detached building with habitable

roofspace and basement level comprising 2 four-bedroom and 4 three bedroom flats with basement parking and landscaping, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION: That had an appeal for non-determination not been received, the application would have been refused.

Part two, two and a half and three storey detached building with habitable roofspace and basement level comprising 2 four-bedroom and 4 three bedroom flats with basement parking and landscaping, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

1891/APP/2010/1465

Planning permission was sought to erect a part two, part two and a half, part three-storey block of 2 x four-bedroom and 4 x three-bedroom flats with basement parking and habitable accommodation and associated landscaping. An appeal for non-determination had been submitted.

The officer report stated that this application followed on from two previous applications on this site for flatted redevelopment which had both been refused. The first was also dismissed at appeal. Although not previously refused for resulting in a further over-concentration of flats in the road, the latest officer survey indicated that Frithwood Avenue already breached the 10% HDAS guidance figure.

Whilst some improvements had been made, the overall scale of the building was still inappropriate for the site and the building represented an incongruous and cramped form of development on the site and resulted in an excessive loss of garden land. Given the siting of a number of ground and first floor bedroom windows, these rooms would not have had an adequate outlook and the proposal would not have afforded adequate amenity for its occupiers.

Inadequate tree information had been submitted to allow a proper assessment of the scheme and the access and refuse arrangements would prejudice highway and pedestrian safety. Also, as no S106 Agreement had been offered at this stage, the scheme failed to make appropriate provision for additional educational facilities.

Therefore, had an appeal for non-determination not had been lodged, the scheme would have been refused for the reasons identified and set out in more detail in the report.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Councillor Ray Graham spoke on behalf on the petitioners.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Councillor Graham stated that Ward Councillors were in support of this petition and spoke on behalf of the residents who had signed the petition objecting to the application.

• This was the third application by this developer on this site in the last 2 years. One of which was appealed, and refused on appeal.
• It was stated that the applicants were not prepared to wait for determination.
• The application was vastly over-large and that the plans submitted were completely unacceptable.  That developers would simply tweak other plans and applications rather than taking all factors into consideration when submitting plans.
• That people chose to live in such locations due to the openness, nice gardens and views – the local ambience.
• That the plans were scarce in regards to tree protection.
• That there was no offer of contribution to school fees.
• Councillor Ray Graham congratulated officers on their report and asked the Committee to uphold the views of the residents.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Members had concerns about the parking facilities and stated that they accepted the officer’s recommendation to refuse this application. The decisions were based on planning law, and that the site already had considerable development. This application was too much for that site, it included 20 bedrooms on the application.

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.