Agenda item

Councillor Tony de Vere had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers reported that some concerns had been expressed regarding the accuracy of the submitted plans.  It was explained that the confusion was due to a scale being incorrectly exaggerated on the Council’s website, which was being addressed.  The Committee was advised that the plan shown at the meeting was accurate and was in accordance with the measurements taken on site.  It was reported that in terms of the relationship with the original application, the houses had been moved back into the site and the degree of set back was explained.  The Officers reported that should the Committee be minded to approve the application a further condition should be added to require obscure glazing of the window on the rear of the building on plot 4.  The relationship of the properties was explained and the elevations were illustrated. It was reported that Officers considered that the changes to the proposal met the objections previously raised and that a provision of 11 parking spaces was acceptable.

Mr G Counsell made a statement objecting the application raising concerns regarding proximity; orientation of the properties; the adverse visual impact of a continuous featureless roof; the proposal being contrary to policy; over dominance; design; impeding of the access by the garage on plot 3; the inadequate width of the road; minimum distances being insufficient; lack of consultation with the Fire Safety Officer; inadequate space around plot 4;  the need to relocation the garage on plot 4; window to windows distances on plot 4 and the neighbouring property being only 18 metres and not 21; overlooking; loss of privacy; and land levels, commenting that the wall at Stanab was higher on one side than on the other.

Mr V Brown made a statement in support of the application advising that the proposal addressed the objections previously raised. He commented that the proposal sought to minimise impact on the street scene; the buildings were set back; and it was a large site with ample space for large gardens and parking. He reported that the density was in keeping with the existing in the area; the proposal did not amount to over development; there would be no loss of privacy or overshadowing of neighbouring houses or those houses on the site; the design and height were in keeping with other properties in the area; materials would be in keeping also; elevations were different to provide interest; footprints were staggered and the garages were set back. He explained the proximity of the new buildings with neighbouring properties and commented that the proposed windows were acceptable. Finally, he reported that the access had been designed in negotiation with the County Council.

The local Member commented that the applicant had gone a long way to address the concerns previously raised but she still had some reservations namely that the garage on plot 3 should be relocated or removed; the roof of the building on plot 3 should be hipped and she was not convinced that the distances between properties were acceptable.

Some Members spoke against the application raising the following concerns:

·                    The proposed houses would overlook the rear of gardens of the properties in Blenheim Way.

·                    There were other amendments to the proposal which could be made to further address the concerns raised such as providing a hip roof to the building on plot 3 and reconsidering design to improve the “pinch point” of the garage on plot 3.  The Officers responded that they considered this acceptable.

·                    The width of the access might be insufficient for service and emergency vehicles such as the fire service.  The Officers reported that to ensure that a Certificate for Fire Prevention was secured alternative measures such as dry rise or sprinkler systems might be provided, although this was not a planning matter but would be an issue for the Council's Building Control service.

·                    One Member questioned the trigger point for affordable housing and expressed concern regarding the number of dwellings proposed in this case, thus avoiding the requirement to provide affordable housing.  The Officers responded that the relevant policy was concerned with preventing harm to the character of the area and surrounding properties and it was highlighted that this was a difficult site in view of the neighbouring properties and planning permission for an earlier development had been refused.    One Member questioned whether it would be appropriate to refuse permission where it was thought that an applicant was deliberately avoiding compliance with policy to provide affordable housing.   The Officers responded that this was an option.  However, in this case having heard all the arguments it was apparent that the applicant had tried to design a proposal which fitted into the site.  It was highlighted that the same number of dwellings had been proposed in the earlier application which had been refused.  The issue of affordable housing had been discussed at that time and had not been included as a reason for refusal.  By way of clarification the Officer reported that in this case, to trigger the requirement for affordable housing, there would need to be six units proposed on the site (i.e. a net increase of five units).

·                    There should be a greater mix of houses, including semi detached properties with some affordable housing. The Officers reminded Members that they needed to consider the application as presented.

Other Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments:

·                    The proposed layout was acceptable and the impact on the amenity of neighbours was not sufficient to justify refusing the application. 

The Chair sought a view from the Committee on whether the Officers should seek to negotiate with the applicant for a hip roof on the building on plot 3.  It was acknowledged that the application could not be refused if the applicant declined to do so, as the proposal was acceptable as it stood on design and impact terms.  This was supported by 10 votes to nil with 2 abstentions and 2 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item.

By 12 votes to nil with 2 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application KBA/6770/11 subject to:

(1)       the conditions set out in the report;

(2)               an additional condition to require obscure glazing and top hung window on the building on plot 4; and

(3)       an additional condition to require permeable surfaces to buildings, driveways and parking areas and the maintenance of those.

(b)       that the Officers seek to negotiate with the applicant for an amendment to the scheme to provide for a hip roof on the building on plot 3.