Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of two dwellings comprising of 1No. 2-bed and 1No. 5-bed dwelling following the demolition of the existing bungalow.

 

The Senior Planner updated her report by referring to late representations from 18 Bishops Road, 21 Bishops Road and 20 Exeter Close.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from an Exeter Close resident:

      i.          This plan would involve the loss of a bungalow with disabled parking from the housing stock: this was raised by the Access Officer at an early stage as a reason for rejecting the application. Although the planned houses will conform to the required disabled access regulations, the nearest parking for the proposed Plot 1 would be well over 100 metres away up a gravel and somewhat uneven track it was unrealistic to describe the development  as providing disabled access, either for its residents or visitors.

     ii.          Objected to the over-development of the site: to replace a 2-bedroom bungalow with two houses with 7 bedrooms in a total ground area of less than 320 square metres means that the density is well out of line with anything nearby in Bishops Road.

   iii.          This would increase the number of traffic movements which would exacerbate traffic flow and parking issues in the area.

   iv.          The increase in vehicle movements will not only be due to cars but could also be due to van deliveries. Having a greater number of residents on the 25B plot is likely to result in more van deliveries along the track. This track is privately owned, narrow, and has a corner in it. There is no provision for turning vans at or beyond the 25B plot, so they have to reverse. Damage to roofing, gutters and fences has already occurred; such damage will be more likely with more such vehicle movements.

    v.          If, in spite of these objections, this application was approved:

a.    Noted the revision on the plan in the positioning of the Plot 1 house; this marginally improves the light loss to a well-used room in Objector’s house and paved seating area.

b.    The plan included the demolishing of the brick wall (between Objector’s property and Plot 1). Was concerned about the possible consequential structural damage to Objector’s main sewer (which runs extremely close at the base of the wall) and to the foundations of their house, which may also be affected by the digging of the deeper foundations to the Plot 1 house. Understood that a ‘Party Wall Agreement’ would be needed, and asked that (as a condition) a structural surveyor be appointed to assess these and other potential damage issues.

c.    During the demolition and building phases, access to the site would be extremely difficult and there would need to be limits on the length, width and height of site service vehicles. Access to the site would cause great disruption both to those residents using the track from Bishops Road and in Bishops Road itself, where it is likely that large lorries would have to off-load onto smaller ones for access to the site.

 

Councillor Summerbell (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application through a written statement (read by Committee Manager):

      i.          Raised residents’ concerns around the proposed work:

a.    Density of the development was out of keeping with the rest of the area – a 2 bed bungalow was being replaced by two houses with a total of seven bedrooms.

b.    The impact of this increase in population on traffic and parking, particularly on a narrow private track shared by residents.

c.    There was particular concern around emergency vehicle access from elderly residents.

d.    Access for construction vehicles, noting particular damage to buildings that had already occurred due to vehicle access.

e.    Safe access to Exeter Close from the rear of the plot.

     ii.          Individual residents also raised concerns about being overlooked and structural risks to their houses from construction work very close by.

   iii.          The Access Officer recommended refusal and residents echoed concerns about loss of accessible housing.

   iv.          If the Committee were minded to approve the application, he would recommend inclusion of the following conditions:

a.    A restriction on the size of vehicles allowed to access the site during construction, to a maximum of 2.3m wide and 2.4m high. If larger vehicles are required they will have to access the site via Exeter close.

b.    A restriction on working hours from 8am to 6pm given the unusually close proximity to residents, and the fact that more people will be spending more time at home than in typical times.

c.    A review, completed prior to construction, of the safety implications and vehicle access requirements to the site once construction is complete.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

         i.          to restrict construction vehicle size via the Transport Management Plan;

       ii.          landscaping condition to include details of measures to prevent car parking on plot 1.

 

These amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to prevent use of flat roof other than for maintenance purposes.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting a working fire prevention sprinkler system.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

     ii.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional conditions:

a.    to restrict construction vehicle size via the Transport Management Plan;

b.    landscaping condition to include details of measures to prevent car parking on plot 1;

c.    to prevent use of flat roof other than for maintenance purposes;

   iii.          include an informative on the planning permission requesting a working fire prevention sprinkler system.