Agenda item

Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during it consideration.

Further to the report, the Officers explained that the block plan had been amended and the Parish Council’s comments on the amended application had now been received details of which were read out at the meeting.  The Parish Council appreciated that the re-positioning of the garage was and improvement but raised concerns regarding the adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours; the height of the house and its steeply pitched roof; bulk; the unsuitable access; a potential hazard to road users and pedestrians; the narrowness of the footpath; lack of visibility; pedestrian safety; traffic speed due to the gradient of the site; and over development.  It was suggested that access via Edward Road should be considered.  Furthermore, it was requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application an independent traffic engineer be commissions to test the safety of the proposed access into Rowles Close.  Finally, the Parish Council urged Members of the Committee to visit the site.

The Officers reported that there had been a further three letters of objection reiterating similar objections, in particular that the access would be inadequate; the proposal amounted to overdevelopment and that a window would be closer to the rear of the neighbouring property than shown of the plans.

It was noted that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the proposal in safety in highway terms.

Reference was made to the plans and it was explained that on one the distance shown was 22 metres and on another 20 metres.  It was clarified that the minimum distance was 21 metres and it was suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director to enable him to verify the discrepancies in the plans.

Peter Biggs made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council referring to the concerns already reported.  He particularly referred to the size of the proposal commenting that the Parish Council had been so concerned that it had held a site meeting.  It had been unanimously agreed that the proposed size of the dwelling would adversely impact on the surrounding properties. He commented that the plans were misleading in that the ground levels were not referred to.  He explained that although the size and height of the dwelling were shown as less than the neighbouring property, it was not highlighted that the neighbour was down hill.  He reported that the house would be enormous and would adversely impact on the neighbour.  Finally, he commented that the Parish Council would not object to a bungalow on this site.

Con Kellecher, a neighbour made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He advised that he had measured the boundaries and there were discrepancies in the measurements given.  He explained that the proposal would be only 6 metres from his boundary and not 10 metres.  He gave details of the measurements namely, 18 metres to No.11, 14 metres to No.7 Edward Road, 19 metres to No. 19 and 21 metres to 131 Upper Road.  He reported that the proposal was unacceptable in terms of proximity levels in that it failed to meet the required minimum distances.  He referred to the floor space which was more than double that of any neighbouring house.  He commented that the access was inadequate and constrained because of the size of the house.  He referred to the gradient of the area and advised that the footpath was well used. He commented that a modest dwelling might be acceptable but the current proposal was excessive in terms of bulk and footprint.

One of the local Members commented that the proposed dwelling was too large and he could not see how a vehicle would be able to gain access to the site and garage.  He considered that a 2 storey house might be acceptable but the current proposal was not.

One Member referred to the comments of the County Engineer who had raised no objection.  However, he questioned whether specific consideration had been given to the access crossing a footpath and he asked that this point should be checked.

By 14 votes to nil with one of the voting Members not being present for consideration of this item, it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application KEN/19763/1 be deferred to enable the Officers to:-

(1)        verify the measurements, the size of the property and the gradient of the site;

(2)        seek written confirmation from the CountyEngineer that he gave specific consideration to the access crossing the footpath and that he has no objection in terms of pedestrian safety.