Agenda item

Demolition of six sheds / garages and construction of 6 semi-detached dwelling houses comprising 4 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed houses.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement

[Cllr Mallett did not sit as a member of the Committee for the duration of this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of six sheds/garages and construction of 6 terraced dwelling houses comprising 4 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 beds. 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.

In response to questions from the Committee, officers confirmed that one of the houses would be required to be wheelchair accessible and that the applicant owned the footpath/alleyway leading from Penniston Close which transected the application site.

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

·        The new properties would cause overlooking to the houses directly opposite on Penniston Close and adjacent properties on Downhills Way and negatively impact on privacy.

·        The scheme would result in overshadowing to the gardens and rear windows of adjacent houses on Downhills Way.

·        Local residents would be subject to nuisance from construction works including noise and odour.

·        The parking provision proposed was insufficient and would have a knock on effect on parking pressure in the local area.

·        The application was contrary to new approaches to prevent ‘garden grabbing’ and would set a precedent in the area.

·        The application did not include important details such as refuse and surface water management.

·        It was asserted that residents of Downhills Way had right of access to the alleyway on site inline with their deeds and was used regularly by local residents.

·        The plans did not accurately illustrate the close proximity of the new properties to existing houses on Penniston Close.

·        The applicant had allowed the garages currently on the site to deteriorate and become dilapidated to justify the planning application.

·        The scheme would constitute overdevelopment of the area for financial gain by exploiting the large gardens to Downhills Way houses.

·        The development would result in an increase in traffic in the area and exacerbate existing parking issues.

·        A pavement was not proposed to the front of the new properties necessitating access directly off the road which would be dangerous for family accommodation.

Cllrs Griffith and Mallett addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application on the following grounds:

·        The development would change the nature of the area of houses that enjoyed large gardens and would set a precedent for their development.

·        The scheme would increase parking pressures in the area which were already exacerbated by parking restrictions and proximity to a nearby CPZ.

·        The new properties would result in overlooking and overshadowing to houses opposite, especially due to the narrow width of Penniston Close.

·        Local people would be impacted by the loss of access to the alleyway.

·        The proposed scheme didn’t meet dwelling mix or affordable housing requirements.

The applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        Access keys to the alleyway gates would be provided to individuals with right of access, which did not include Penniston Close residents. The gating would prevent existing fly tipping problems.

·        Due to the separation distance of 24m, any overshadowing to 209 Downhills Way would only be caused to the garden.

·        Existing garages on the site were not in use and had been subject to malicious damage in the past.

·        A walkway would be provided to the front of the new houses

·        Sufficient parking provision was available on Penniston Close to cover any additional demand.

·        The proposed houses were of two storey construct with dormer windows to the roof which was inline with other houses in the area.

Cllr McNamara proposed a motion, seconded by Cllr Solomon to reject the application. At a vote, the motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED

·        That planning application HGY/2013/1690 be rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of amenity, high risk of overlooking and non compliance with 8.21 of adopted Housing SPD 2008.