Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for demolition of existing garages and redevelopment to provide eight residential dwellings (Use Class C3) along with car and cycle parking and associated infrastructure and landscaping.

The Senior Planner referred to details on the amendment sheet.

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application. His written statement was read by the Committee Manager.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from residents of Hinton Avenue, Courtland Avenue, and Lilac Court.

The representation covered the following issues:

      i.         There was a dangerous potential for vehicle strike due to tight constraints of the development, also impacting the current on-street vehicle parking and the safety of residents exiting properties.

    ii.         A lack of footpaths outside proposed houses would lead to a requirement for dropped kerbs for wheelchair/buggy use, displacing required parking. A reduction in the southern turning circle would lead to increased danger from larger vehicles.

   iii.         New dwellings would overlook and intrude on surrounding residents, including windows and balconies facing habitable rooms.  Additionally several of the new dwellings included no proper amenity space.

  iv.         Tree officers did not support the application as several trees would have to be felled.

    v.         The Applicant’s claim that the garages were not in use and a site of antisocial behaviour were inaccurate. Also, the designated site was not available for development as several residents have access rights across it to access their freehold and leasehold garages.

Councillor Herbert (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.         Was pleased this had come to committee as there had been two applications, one of which was withdrawn before a decision notice could be issued.

    ii.         Took issue with the accuracy of details previously submitted by the Applicant and stated inaccurate material had been provided previously regarding tree surveys and computer-generated images.

   iii.         The 11m width of the designated area was too small for this type of development and the close proximity to current properties which had large habitable room windows would lead to new properties requiring significant measures to obscure their views. This would impact on existing residents’ privacy and amenity.

  iv.         Asked the committee to consider/review text in the existing reasons for refusal, but there were several strong reasons included, so please support the officer recommendation to refuse. The application would exacerbate existing issues in the area such as traffic and refuse (waste) collection lorry manoeuvrability in the turning head.

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

        i.         Reason for refusal 5 should include a note that there would be a net loss of biodiversity from the development.

      ii.         The louvred windows in bedrooms would mean a lack of appropriate amenity and light.

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation. The description within the reason for refusal 6 should make mention that the development is of eight 3 bedroom houses, not two 3 bedroom houses and six 2 bedroom houses, which strengthened the issues of inadequate cycle storage and not meeting M4(2) accessible homes standards.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 4 votes to 2) to refuse the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report and amendment sheet, including the amendment to:

      i.         Reason for Refusal 5, to include that the proposal will result in a net loss of biodiversity.

    ii.         Reason for Refusal 6, to reword to include that the proposal failed to provide adequate levels of cycle parking provision for the dwellings proposed.

   iii.         Draft an additional reason for refusal, relating to poor amenity for future occupants of the dwellings, due to the louvred windows being the only windows in certain bedrooms.

Delegated authority was given to officers, to draft the conditions in consultation with the Chair and Spokes.