Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 2-storey (with basement level) dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION: Members are recommended to advise PINS that the LPA considers PERMISSION should be GRANTED subject to conditions.

*Clerks note – The Chair agreed to amend the order of business for the meeting. Agenda item 10 would be considered first, followed by item 9 and then item 8. Please note, the minutes follow the order in which they were considered during the meeting, rather than the order stated on the agenda.*

The Committee considered an application for: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 2-storey (with basement level) dwellinghouse.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

a.    In response to a query around the relevant restrictions upon the committee in relation to the case, as set out in the national framework on planning and design; officers advised that the Committee was unable to impose their own design preferences when making a decision, but should be respectful to features that contribute the wider street scene.

b.    In response to a question, officers advised that a duplicate application had been submitted for this site which was due be heard before 5^th July. Officers advised that because the application had gone to an appeal for non-determination, which could take up to six months, the duplicate application was a contingency aimed at speeding up the process.

c.    In response to a question, officers acknowledged that as a semi-detached property, the proposed basement carried a higher degree of risk due to the party wall. However, the structural engineer had no objections at this stage and more detailed assessment would be required for building regulations.

d.    Officers also acknowledged that the report recommended that permitted development rights be restricted in order to maintain openness around the property. Officers added that although retention of the existing building was preferred by officers, it could not be mandated as the property already had  permitted development rights for demolition.

Farrol Goldblatt and David Godden spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Godden advised that he objected to the site due its poor design quality, characterising the design as a brick box with aluminium windows. It was asserted that the proposals did not meet a high standard of design, nor contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area, as was required by the Council’s own planning policies.

The proposal related to a semi- detached property and the objectors were concerned that the design effectively grafted an unsuitable looking design onto an existing property. In further contrast to the Council’s own planning policies, this did not interact positively with existing structures.  It was suggested that design standards needed to be high in order to maintain the Edwardian character of the street. There had been no demolitions in the street and the street-scape had remained the same since it was built.

The objectors commented that the concerns of the community had been ignored and that there had been a total lack of consultation with neighbouring properties.

Mr Goldblatt advised the Committee that he owned the adjoining property with the site and opposed the application, due to the poor quality of design and the impact of the development within the residential street. It was suggested that 76 & 78 Woodland Gardens were unique as the only semi-detached properties in the street. Furthermore, the site was considered to be structurally sound and did not pose a threat. The objector acknowledged that the property was not in a good state at present but suggested that any design should be in keeping with the wider architectural style of the street.

Cllr Connor and Cllr Ogiehor also spoke in objection to the application. 

Cllr Ogiehor suggested that the design was completely out of keeping with the distinct character of the wider area and also raised concerns that there had been a total lack of consultation. Cllr Ogiehor urged that any renovation should maintain the original architectural features and was concerned that acceptance of this application would set a worrying precedent. The Committee was urged to reject the application.

Cllr Connor advised that she was addressing the Committee on behalf of local residents who were concerned with the application. Cllr Connor requested that the Committee reject the application. However, If the Committee was to approve the application, the following conditions should be implemented:

1. That the window sizes be reduced to match those of the neighbouring properties.
2. That the property be rebuilt in a manner fitting to its Edwardian design, and in support of the distinctiveness of the local area.
3. That a quantitative ground quality assessment be undertaken in respect of the proposed basement.

The Committee had a number of questions in relation to the points raised by the objectors:

a.    In response to a question, officers advised that notification of demolition could be carried out without planning permission. Officers agreed that retention would be preferable to demolition but cautioned that there was no facility to insist on this under planning legislation.

b.    In response to a further question, officers advised that a basement impact assessment would be required at the building regulations stage.

c.    The Committee sought clarification on the types of conditions that objectors would seek if planning permission was granted. In response, the objectors emphasised the uniformity of the existing street scape and urged that it should be maintained. Mr Godden suggested that any conditions should focus on strictly controlling the building materials used, particularly in regards to the window frames and wider architectural detailing.

Speaking in favour of the application were Rod MacArthur, the architect, and Jason Evans, the owner of 76 Woodland Gardens.

The applicant’s representative informed the Committee that an application was originally submitted in May 2017 and officers had failed to come back to the applicant within the agreed timelines, hence the application for non-determination. The Committee heard that although 77 objections had been received, around 85% of local residents have not objected to the application and it was suggested that the opposition was a small vocal minority.

The applicant’s representative advised that he had received a clear brief to be sympathetic to the character of the local area and he believed that the building plans achieved this. The Committee was also advised that the property did not lie within a conservation area and therefore objections based on preserving architectural uniformity should have no bearing on the decision.

The applicant informed the Committee that the property had been on the market for three years prior to his purchasing of it, and that this was because of several instances were financing had fallen through on receipt of the building inspector’s report. It was also suggested that the applicant had received advice from several contractors that the building was beyond economic repair, which had also been confirmed by a structural engineer. The applicant also informed the Committee that a number of changes had been made to the plans, in light of some of the objections raised by the community. Furthermore, this was the second application submitted as the first was withdrawn on the advice of Council officers.

In response to a question from the Committee about the changes made when submitting the second application, the applicant advised that a number of changes were made to the front elevation to make the design more in keeping with original Edwardian detailing.  Alterations were also made to the main window bay.

Cllr Mitchell proposed an amended resolution to that outlined in the report. Cllr Cawley-Harrison seconded the amended resolution. The resolution was to advise the Planning Inspectorate that had the application not been appealed on grounds of non-determination, the development described in the report and submitted plans, would have been REFUSED PLANNING PERMISSION application on the grounds that it failed to comply with policy DM1, as it failed to maintain the distinctive character and amenity of the local area.

Following a vote, with 7 in favour, 4 against and no abstentions or refusals, it was

RESOLVED

That had the application not been appealed on grounds of non-determination, the development described in the report and submitted plans, would have been REFUSED PLANNING PERMISSION application on the grounds that its detailed design, scale and appearance, would not relate positively to neighbouring buildings and would harm the character and appearance of the area, and that it failed to comply with policy DM1.