Agenda item

Construction of a new semi-detached dwelling.

Officer’s recommendation:  OPEN (refer to report)

Councillors Chappell, Elengorn, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

The Development Control Officer reported that he had received a detailed response on the Council’s report from the applicant’s consultant, which had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.

It was noted that the main purpose of the consultant’s response was to highlight errors, indicate that the applicant felt certain areas of the report were misleading and to state that they felt the recommendation option for refusal was flawed.

The report examined potential reasons for refusal in relation to the:

·         other approved two storey side extensions in Trafalgar Road

·         alleged impact upon 4 Trafalgar Road

·         previous prosecution

·         site description

·         Conservation Area Enforcement Notice

·         pre-application advice

·         heritage issues

·         proposed basement

·         mechanism for securing implementation; and

·         ‘without basement scheme’ on the agenda

The Development Control Officer responded to the points raised by the applicant and their consultant via the addendum:

• Many of the matters of substance raised were solely due to a difference of planning judgment
• A factual error in the officer’s report was corrected, which related to the date on which permission for a side extension to 8 Trafalgar Road was granted.  This was amended to July 1991, which was after the adoption of the Trafalgar Road Conservation Area Guidelines in 1979, with the adopted guidance still a material consideration.  Other extensions at variance with the guidelines were approved in the 1980s at 17, 21 and 28 Trafalgar Road, each having a ‘step-out’ to reintroduce design symmetry on semi-detached houses
• The recommendation to reduce the “implementation period” to 6 months related solely to the commencement of any building works approved under this application.  It also reflected the enforcement notice’s period of compliance which required substantial completion of the development within 10 months
• The period of sentence in the event of non-payment of the fine was agreed by the judge in the prosecution case as being 21 months imprisonment, as opposed to 2.5 years as mentioned in the officer’s report

The Development Control Officer reported receipt of the following late letters: 

a)      Dr Vincent Cable MP confirmed that the applicant had visited him at his surgery.

b)      8 Trafalgar Road was objecting on the following grounds:

·         The application should be viewed as entirely new, with previous consents not setting a precedent

·         Contentious sections of the application (such as the basement) should be withdrawn to allow for a speedy resolution to issues now present on the site

·         Overshadowing

·         Inclusion of a skylight

·         The proposed floors and ceilings should align with those at 8 Trafalgar Road in order to have a symmetrical outward appearance

·         No detailed survey of 8 Trafalgar Road had been carried out, in order to ensure the design would be translated to 6 Trafalgar Road

·         Letters of support from personal connections of the applicant should be given lesser weight (not a material planning consideration)

c)      4 Trafalgar Roadreferred to the results of a questionnaire completed by residents, where the majority of those that responded wished to see the house rebuilt as it was prior to any future proposals to alter or extend.  They were also objecting on the following grounds:

·         Members should visit the site before the meeting

·         The application should be viewed as entirely new with previous consents not setting a precedent

·         Consideration for any extensions should take place once the house had been replaced

·         The financial penalty imposed was not considered a suitable deterrent and enforcement of the Conservation Area Enforcement Notice (CAEN) should take place

·         The size and scale of the proposed dwelling was inappropriate, even without the inclusion of a basement

·         It would dominate and overshadow adjoining properties

·         The proposed house’s footprint was larger than the original house

·         Windows on the side and rear extensions should be fixed shut and obscure glazed to prevent overlooking

·         The non-habitable windows facing 4 Trafalgar Road served a staircase and landing linked to bedrooms and bathrooms

·         Overlooking of the rear conservatory should not take place

·         No details provided on preventing discharge of smells from the proposed toilet

·         The ground level of no 6 Trafalgar Road was higher than that of 4 Trafalgar Road, which was not considered or recognised in any report.  The higher ground level would add to the overbearing nature of the proposed building and present issues with surface water drainage and migration of water below the ground

·         No internal inspection of 4 Trafalgar Road had taken place, in order to establish the layout of the property

·         There would be a loss of light to the ground floor at 8 Trafalgar Road

·         No other properties with two-storey side extensions in Trafalgar Road had windows on the side elevations

·         7 Trafalgar Road had previously been refused permission for windows on a side extension

·         It was inappropriate to have a significant horizontal emphasis on the main façade

·         No detailed survey of 8 Trafalgar Road had been undertaken

·         There was no need for a skylight in the attic

·         The basement in application 11/1170 would contribute to overdevelopment

·         The engineer’s details and method statements were not available for public inspection

·         There were no details of the measures to be taken to preserve the under ground structure of the boundary wall between 4 and 6 Trafalgar Road

·         The CAEN should be used to drive the rebuilding of the original house

The committee heard representations in favour of the application from Des O’Carroll and Graham House.  Councillor Allen spoke as an interested councillor.

The Committee considered all the information provided and different views were expressed about to the recommendations. They noted the sensitivity of the matter but did not believe that trying to form a new pair by introducing symmetry between the two houses at no.6 and no.8 on a tree-lined street was a strong argument.  It was also felt that the proposal as a whole was bland and overpowering and not in keeping with the character of the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED that:

1. Had an appeal against the application not been lodged, it would have been REFUSED for the following reason:

“The proposed house, by reason of its siting, scale, design and combined frontage width with No.8 Trafalgar Road, would appear a large and imposing building out-of-proportion to the other nearby historic houses which combine to create the special character and appearance of this part of the Trafalgar Road Conservation Area and from which it would hence detract as well as the setting of adjacent listed building at No.4 Trafalgar Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BLT 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan: First Review, Core Strategy policy CP7 and the emerging Development Management: DPD policies DM HD 01, 02 and DC 01BLT 2, 3 and 11 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan: First Review, Supplementary Planning Documents: Design Quality and Small and Medium Housing Sites.”

2. Authorisation be given to the Development Control Manager (in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairmen of the Planning Committee) to address any matters arising out of the forthcoming planning inquiry in November 2011.