Agenda item

The Officers highlighted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal but had requested a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure.  However, the Officers commented that for a scheme of this size it was considered that there were no grounds to request the contribution which was considered unreasonable.

Further to the report it was noted that an additional letter had been received from a consultant acting on behalf of the residents of No.45 raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report and in particular commenting that whilst there was no objection to infill at the front, it was suggested that there should be one dwelling or a pair of semi detached properties which were in keeping with the vernacular line of development; the principle of backland development was out of character with the immediate surroundings and the spirit of development; there would be visual intrusion and overlooking in respect of the two buildings at the rear which was not understood as the plans were only two-dimensional; there were concerns regarding traffic, access, the setting of a president for more accesses, proximity, loss of light and privacy to rear parts of existing gardens and overlooking to No.51.

The Officers reminded the Committee that this was an outline application and that the plans were illustrative only.  It was commented that the density would be 35 dwellings per hectare which would be below the recommended minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare and therefore three dwellings would not be overdevelopment of this site.

Mr Lilly representing the residents of No.45 made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters reported earlier in the meeting.  He commented that infilling at the front with one dwelling was not in question.  However, he particularly raised concern regarding the principle of development of the back garden which he commented would not be in keeping with the spirit of development for backland.  He commented that whilst there were other backland developments in Charlton Road, none had resulted in an adverse impact or un-neighbourliness and he considered this proposal would.  He stated that the plan showed two two-story houses which he considered was unacceptable commenting that this new development would not have a good relationship with existing development.  He stated that adequate open space should be retained and that he was concerned regarding overshadow and siting.   He considered that the proposal was unacceptable in the it was contrary to Planning Policy DC.9 in that development should not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenity of neighbours in terms of visual intrusion, loss of day light etc.  He suggested that if any Member had doubt about this proposal then they should defer its consideration and visit the site.  He suggested that by standing outside No.45 Members would be able to appreciate the impact that the proposal would have in terms of overdevelopment, loss light and loss of privacy.

Mr Matthew Green, the applicants agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that the current proposal had been put forward having regard to advice received from the Council Officers following lengthy negotiations and discussions. He stated that that the application was for outline permission only to establish whether the principle of development was acceptable. He advised that reserve matters would form a further separate application.  He drew attention to Planning Policy commenting that the proposal was acceptable.  In terms of loss of light, he suggested that as the proposed properties were to the north of the existing properties this would be minimal.  He stated that the access already existed.

One of the local Members speaking on behalf of the other two local Members commented that the site was a double plot and as such there was no objection to the proposed house at the front of the site in line with the existing frontage.  She stated that plot 3 next to No.51 might face northwest but it was only 1 metre away from the west boundary of the garden of No.51 which only received sunlight in the afternoon from the west.  Therefore plot 3 would deprive a significant part of the garden of No.51 from sunlight. Reference was made to paragraph 5.6 of the report stating that the height to the eaves of the proposed dwelling was 3.7metres, however, she believe that the full height to the roof line would be around another 2metres.  She commented that this would cast a significant shadow of around 5.7metres across the neighbour’s garden which was very narrow being only 6.7metres. She stated that although the proposed flat roof garage at 2.7metres did not seem much higher than a 2metre permitted fence, it was some 35% higher and the shade from the garage would cast a shadow across almost half of the width of the neighbour’s garden. She asked Members to bear in mind the dimension of the proposed house and garage which would run alongside the boundary fence.  The double garage would be around 3metres and the house probably around 6metres.  She stated that again this would mean that a significant part of the garden of No.51 would be in shade for a great part of the afternoon, particularly from late summer onwards when the sun was lower in the sky.  The local Member commented that a two dimensional plan did not illustrate the impact that plots 2 and 3 would have on the neighbouring gardens satisfactorily. She explained that when she had stood in the garden on No.51 and visualised a large house plus a garage only 1 metre away from the fence, she could immediately sense the over dominance and sheer intrusion that the proposal would have on privacy for the resident.  She stated that it was obvious that the garden of No.51 would remain in shade most of the time with the occasional glimpse of sunlight as it slanted between the garage & house, then right at the end of day at the bottom of the garden.  It was explained that the resident of No.51 was a pensioner who lived alone and was extremely anxious and distressed at the prospect of excessive development.  The resident enjoyed the garden and the proposal would significantly adversely impact on her enjoyment of it.   The local Member stated that plot 2 would be very close, namely 12 metres away, to the living are of No. 45 it being noted that that property had an extension and patio.   In conclusion, the local Member stated that plots 2 and 3 of the proposal should be refused as they would adversely impact on the enjoyment of amenity by the neighbours by way of intrusion, loss of privacy, over-dominance, un-neighbourliness and loss of sunlight (particularly in the case of no. 51) which was contrary to Policy DC9.  Finally, she stated that should the Committee be minded to approve the application she asked that the reserve matters application be presented to a future meeting for consideration to ensure that the inevitable detrimental effects were minimised and those affected had a chance to put their case forward.

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·        The proposal was not dissimilar to other back land development and was not considered out of keeping or over development.

·        The overshadowing of No.51 needed to be considered but this would be resolved at the reserve matters stage.

·        The proposal was typical of Charlton Road it being noted that there was a similar development opposite.

·        The proposal houses on plots 2 and 3 would be north of the existing development.

·        An informative should be adding stating that notwithstanding the illustrative drawings of this application it was expected that the reserve matters application would provide a sensitively designed scheme having regard to the impact on the amenity of neighbours.

·        The proposal was not out of character or keeping and there were no material reasons to refuse the application.

It was suggested that the design, scale and massing of building on plots 2 and 3 needed to be carefully thought out having regard to the impact on neighbours and it was agreed that an informative in this regard should be included with the granting of permission notice.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application WAN/20566/1 – X be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report together with an informative advising that notwithstanding the illustrative drawings it is expected that the reserve matters application should provide a sensitively designed scheme having regard to the impact on the amenity of neighbours.