Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Mallett stood down from the Committee for the determination of this item in order to make a representation as a local ward councillor].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2 no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement. 

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Owing to proposals for each bedroom to be supplied by an ensuite bathroom, there was concern that the dwellings would be run as HMOs (House of Multiple Occupation).

·         The site was not previously developed garden land and as such should be protected. No planning permission was in place for the shed onsite used for commercial purposes.

·         Local people had discovered a restrictive covenant in place on the land and would be pursuing enforcement with the beneficiary.

·         The scheme failed to meet emerging Council policy requirements for backland development in failing to relate appropriately and sensitively to its surroundings.

·         The detached house would be sited only 2m from the garden fences to the closest Sirdar Road properties.

·         The scheme would result in overlooking to 208 and 210 Sirdar Road, with tree planting not suitable all year screening.

·         Increased noise levels in the area arising from the new dwellings was not covered within the report.

·         Plans did not include the retention of mature trees onsite thereby exacerbating noise and overlooking concerns.

·         The report identified that there would be no impact on parking but did not explain why.

·         The scheme was inappropriate for the site and to the surrounding community.

Cllr Mallett addressed the Committee and reiterated the concern raised by the objectors over the provision of ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom in the proposed new units. This would be unusual for family accommodation leading to concerns over HMO conversion and associated increased noise and parking pressures.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The site was not considered garden land as it did not relate to a specific dwelling.

·         The owner of the land had used the shed onsite for commercial purposes.

·         The scheme would provide 3 new family houses.

·         Ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom was a contemporary feature and affirmed that there was no expectation the scheme would be a HMO development.

·         Revisions had been made to the scheme design following objections received. The last application had been rejected on a single grounds and which had now been addressed under the current application.

·         The presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48