Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that outline planning permission for a dwelling on this site is established and this proposal seeks approval of Reserved Matters in relation to the construction of a single dwelling, with the proposal being described by officers as a two-storey dwelling, however, from the submitted drawings what is being proposed is a chalet or a single-storey dwelling with rooms in the roof space. She referred to a planning appeal determined in 2018 that she feels is pertinent to this proposal in which the LPA provided comments within its statement which were “the constraints of the site result in limited options for the location of a proposed dwelling as such a single storey dwelling is not considered able to be reasonably accommodated with sufficient private amenity space or reflective of the large bungalows in this area” so in this grounds of appeal the LPA made it very clear that it did not want a bungalow and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the proposal was for a house so with this in mind the only option available to them was to provide a chalet dwelling and they are, therefore, disappointed that the scheme before committee is with a recommendation of refusal.

Mrs Jackson made the point that the dwelling has been carefully designed so that no windows overlook the neighbouring properties, sufficient parking and garden space has been provided in accordance with the adopted drawings and the dwelling has been set back from the neighbouring properties. She referred to concerns being raised by officers that the proposal would result in an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property at No.7, however, she reiterated that their hands have been somewhat tied in that the Council has confirmed in the previous submission that the proposal could not be a bungalow.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that they have carefully considered the impact on No.7 and as a result half hipped the roof in this location where it is closest to the neighbour, which has resulted in a much lower height dwelling and coupled with the distance from the rear boundary and the 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing on this boundary they would argue this is sufficient to alleviate concerns in relation to an overbearing impact. She made the point that it is clearly not an issue for No.7 and they have not objected to the scheme and she stated that there are no other objections to the proposal other than the seemingly subjective issue with regard to there being an overbearing impact.

Mrs Jackson expressed the opinion that the proposal would be built by a local builder using a local workforce and local materials, which would result in a high quality dwelling within a sustainable location and should be applauded. She expressed the view that the proposal is a sustainable form of development and the relatively low height of the dwelling together with the distance to the boundary and the fencing are all such that there will be no tangible negative impact on the neighbouring dwelling or to the character of the area in general and requested that the Reserved Matters be approved.

Members asked questions of Mrs Jackson as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough appreciated that a lot of effort has gone into the design so there are no windows that are overlooking and the shorter apex part of the building at the rear, however, the height of the building would still overlook the gardens and from visiting the site she does feel there would be an element of loss of light together with traffic and parking pressures. She asked if it would be on-street parking? Mrs Jackson responded that on the site plan there are 2 off-street parking spaces which would be provided for the proposal and that meets the criteria within the Local Plan. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked about the loss of light? Mrs Jackson responded that it is a relatively low height building, it is set back from the neighbouring properties and there is also a 1.8 metre high fence in the way so she believes the most overshadowing is going to come from the fence which is already there and feels it would be difficult to enforce that there would be an overshadowing issue from the proposal given the current situation.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site, it is a shame that as they have got their outline planning permission that they did not listen to what officers said on the decision notice. She believes this proposal is too large for the site, it will cast shadows on the neighbour, which is a material consideration and the neighbours are entitled under Human Rights to the enjoyment of their home and if this application is approved it will remove some of this.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with the comments of Councillor Mrs French but is a little confused as to why it is felt they cannot still place a bungalow on the site, which may be to do with cost. He also raised concern with the two parking spaces, which means that one way has got to either be reversed in or reversed off the road and he believes that the officer’s recommendation is correct.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.