Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a five bedroom dwelling, detached garage with habitable room above.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

Councillor Naylor informed the committee that he knew one of the speakers on this item and had attended the appeal for a previous application on this site.  He considered that these factors were not sufficient to declare a formal interest.  He also confirmed that he had not pre-determined the application and would consider it on its merits.

The Development Control Officer introduced the application and made the following additions, deletions and amendments to the report:

• Add to condition U41024 Approved drawings: 

Drawings: Site Location Plan, Supporting Statement, Structural Report, Energy Statement, Code for Sustainable Homes Report Ref: SM.CP-1,  2010/51/BAL, received on 29/03/2011, Ecology Survey, received on 9/05/2011, and drawing numbers 2010/51/GAR Revision A, 2010/51/P02 Revision C and 2010/51/P01 Revision A, received on 8/06/2011.

• Replace U4115 with Vehicular turn table

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with technical details and drawings which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to show; the vehicular turn table which shall thereafter be retained as approved. 

REASON: In the interests of highways safety and neighbour amenity and to ensure that the proposed development accords with Council residential parking standards.

• Remove condition U41036 replace with the following informative:  The applicants are advised that the garage structure hereby approved must remain ancially to the house hereby approved.  The use of this structure as a self-contained residential property will require a further planning consent.

• Add to condition U41116 – ‘Siting and design of solar panels’.

Amend report:

• Remove ‘and accords with policy’ from first sentence of 2^nd para in summary.
• Para. 43 – add, ‘partially’ before screened on second line
• Para. 57 – add ‘broadly’ before accords.
• Add following paragraph:  Impact on Care Home:

The proposed dwelling would be located in broadly the same position as existing in the northern corner of the plot and would be broadly the same height as existing. 

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be wider than existing, the sufficient separation distances involved, proposed height and level of boundary treatment dividing the application site from the care home, would ensure that no detrimental impact would be caused with regard to outlook or loss of light.  The proposal accords with BRE guidelines. 

Many of the existing first and ground floor windows face toward the care home. However, the existing garage and boundary treatment screens the bulk of the existing house from the care home and prevents undue overlooking and a loss of privacy.  Many of the proposed balcony and first floor windows would face towards the care home as the existing windows do. However, the proposed dwelling would be recessed into the ground and would be broadly the same height as the existing house and the proposed garage and existing boundary treatment would screen views into the grounds of the care home.  As such the proposed dwelling would not afford any direct views into the habitable room space or private amenity areas of the care home.

The Development Control Officer also reported two late letters of representation which made the following points:

·         Overbearing, unneighbourly, overdevelopment, loss of green space, bulk, loss of light, noise disturbance and request remove pd rights

·         Request additional condition regarding height of building

The committee heard a representation against the application from Catherine Elliot (a neighbour of the site) and in favour of the application from Jeremy Sandle (the agent on behalf of the applicant).

The Committee considered the information received, the points raised by speakers and the late representation. 

Members discussed the suitability of the design and heard from the DCO that it was felt to be acceptable as the site did not have a streetscene presence given its backland location, and the area was already varied in design terms.

Members sought clarification of the legitimacy in policy terms of the house being dug down in order to increase it’s size and heard that as the house could not be seen from the street this set down would not appear prominent or interrupt a streetscene given its location.

Members were concerned over the lack of justification for the loss of the existing house, the scale of the building for the site, and the garden to building ratio.

Views were heard for and against granting permission to the application.

It was RESOLVED:

1.                        That the officer recommendation be NOT AGREED

2.                        That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

·               The scheme, by reason of the insufficient justification for the loss of the existing property and for its one for one replacement; and the proposals backland location, siting, footprint, erosion of garden land, scale, mass and design, would represent an inappropriate and out of proportion form of over-development, that would harm the character and appearance of the site, area and setting of the adjacent conservation area.   The scheme is thereby contrary to policies BLT2, BLT11, HSG2, HSG4, HSG11 and HSG12 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan; policies CP7 and CP14 of the Adopted Core Strategy; policies DM HO1, DM HD1, DM HO3, DM DC1 of the Development Management Plan:  Publication Version; and Supplementary Planning Documents 'Small and medium housing sites' and 'Design Quality'.