Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing double garage and erection of a 2 storey 5 bedroom single dwelling house with new garage.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which gave details of the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all the relevant planning factors and policies.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report outlining the key points and took questions from members of the Committee. The Committee asked about the recent change in designation of residential gardens by the Government, such that they were no longer defined as “previously developed land” in PPS3 Housing, known as brownfield sites. The Assistant Director, Planning and Regeneration, confirmed that gardens were no longer designated brownfield sites but were not classed as protected either. It was clarified that the Committee should use the robust policies and guidelines already in place, as well as standard statutory planning constraints, to determine the application.

Mr Ibbotson, Chair of the CAAC, addressed the Committee in objection to the application on a number of grounds including the siting of the proposed building, which ignored the sweep of the road, the dominance of the proposed design, the fact that the building would be visible from the road, as the trees screening it were seasonal and the proposed removal of trees. It was reported that the main objection was the design, which was felt to be incongruous and which failed to observe or enhance the Conservation Area. It was reported that the CAAC supported good quality design in the area, but strongly objected to the design presented.

Mr Perry, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and reported that the main objection of local residents was the size of the proposed building as a proportion of the plot and the overdevelopment this represented. Further concerns were expressed regarding hydrology, and the impact the basement would have on the surrounding watercourses. Mr Perry circulated some correspondence he had had with the author of the recent study carried out by Arup Geotechnics in which the author had indicated that there was the possibility of a significant impact on neighbouring properties, and that full analysis should be carried out before a design was undertaken. Mr Martin, a local resident, also addressed the Committee in objection to the application and expressed concerns regarding light pollution, as the atrium of the proposed design would in effect become a 2-storey light box, which would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.

The Committee asked whether the conditions proposed addressed the objectors’ concerns in relation to hydrology issues, in response to which Mr Perry reported that they did not, as the full assessment which the author of the Arups report indicated was essential, given the nature of the soil in the area, had not been carried out before the design was undertaken. In response to a question from the Committee regarding the proposed condition that the materials used be approved by the Local Authority, Mr Ibbotson confirmed that this did not address his concerns, as an indication of the materials to be used was clear from the plans, and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26