Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and shed and erection of dwelling house over three storeys (plus excavation to form a basement level); Erection of rear garden outbuilding; Associated cycle and bin storage; Associated hard and soft landscaping.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing garages and shed and erection of dwelling house over three storeys (plus excavation to form a basement level); Erection of rear garden outbuilding; Associated cycle and bin storage; Associated hard and soft landscaping.

Matthew Gunning, Planning Manager, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was confirmed that the proposed building would be built up to the boundary with 12 Fordington Road. Some members of the Committee enquired whether this was acceptable. The Planning Manager acknowledged that this side of the road had some degree of consistency but noted that the area had a varied context. It was stated that the design solution was considered to achieve an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties and the garage and roof pitching would provide some visual separation with a view of trees and greenery in the background.

·         In relation to queries about flood risk, the Planning Manager noted that a Basement Impact Assessment had been submitted with the application; this considered flood risk, different types of flooding, and historic watercourses in the area. It was considered that no more investigative works were currently required. It was added that the information submitted provided safeguards but that additional detail would have to be provided as a matter of course as the project advanced.

·         In response to a query about basement development, the Planning Manager explained that the normal concern in this instance was the issues potentially caused for adjoining gardens. It was noted that there would be measures to prevent issues and that there was a high degree of permeable surfacing around the site so there would be no adverse effect on the groundwater conditions.

·         It was confirmed that the conditions proposed to remove permitted development rights; it was accepted that the proposal would result in a sizeable house and this was proposed to safeguard amenity for residents.

Alex Whittaker spoke in objection to the application. He noted that he did not object to development of the site in principle but that the proposal was not in accordance with council plans and policies. He stated that the run of semi-detached buildings currently had a distinctive and unified character with spacing between properties. It was considered that the proposal would break the character of the road. Alex Whittaker commented that the application would lead to a building that was out of scale and would introduce an unprecedented shared boundary on the street. He added that there would also be windows on the shared boundary and a staircase window which would also be unprecedented. He stated that two storey side extensions were normally set back and were not permitted to have direct boundary windows. It was explained that the neighbouring property would now become a mid-terrace house and it was considered that the design would result in an unfinished appearance on the street, particularly as the other half would never be built. Alex Whittaker stated that this proposal would set a precedent for oversized development in the area and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

David Inwald spoke in objection to the application. He noted that he did not object to development of the site but objected to the design and the impact on neighbouring amenity proposed by the current application. He stated that the application was not in accordance with the policies noted in the report. It was explained that 28 of the 35 responses to the consultation objected to the proposal. He questioned the value of consultation if no weight could be given to the strength of local objection. It was stated that there were objections to the application which related to design, amenity, and flooding impact. It was noted that the form and mass of the proposal would be excessive and unsightly and it would look like a semi detached house which had been cut off. David Inwald commented that the proposal would be overbearing and imposing with a wall that would block the sky; it was noted that the pictures provided could be useful in demonstrating this. It was suggested that the gable end should be redesigned alongside a smaller house and that this would be supported.

In response to the points raised in the objections and subsequent questions, the following responses were provided:

·         In relation to the issues raised about policy compliance, the safety of the stairway window, and the compliance with Building Regulations, the Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability stated that Building Regulations were largely separate from planning decisions and that Building Control had raised no objections.

·         In response to a question about the proximity of the proposals with the neighbouring property at 12 Fordington Road, Alex Whittaker noted that there were concerns about privacy due to the direct border with the neighbouring property. It was also commented that development above garages was commonly set back on other houses in the street and that the proposals would prejudice future development at 12 Fordington Road. Alex Whittaker noted that he was not professionally qualified but also believed that Building Regulations B4 11.11 provided that unprotected areas on boundaries, such as windows, were no more than 1sqm and a maximum of 4% of the area; he noted that the staircase window clearly appeared to exceed this.

·         It was enquired whether there would normally be this number of windows on a boundary wall and whether this was considered to be acceptable. The Planning Manager explained that design solutions could typically be achieved in relation to Building Regulations. He stated that, to protect privacy, a condition was proposed requiring all windows over 1.7 metres high to be fixed shut. Trespass from a window opening was resolved through party wall agreements and, although not ideal, this was a fairly common arrangement. It was added that officers considered the arrangements to be acceptable overall.

·         It was confirmed that the proposed conditions required all windows over 1.7 metres high to be obscured glass and fixed shut.

·         The objectors confirmed that one of the major issues that residents had with the proposals was the design of the house which looked as if it had been cut in half. It was considered to look unsightly and out of keeping in the area.

John Attree and Paula Attree, applicants, stated that they had lived on the site for 43 years and wanted to remain. John Attree stated that he was sympathetic to objectors and that there was a difference of opinion in relation to the aesthetic. It was noted that the applicants were comfortable with the appearance of the house in the streetscape and believed that there would be no structural damage to or risk of flooding for neighbouring properties. He explained that he had met with the Director of Development approximately one year ago for a pre-application meeting. At this meeting, he commented that the applicants had been given clear guidance on how to make the application more acceptable and that the report covered all major issues relating to design and the objections raised.

In relation to the proposal to build up to the boundary of 12 Fordington Road, John Attree stated that a garage from 1922 had been built at 10 Fordington Road; it was intended to follow this building line and the applicants had received guidance at their pre-application meeting that this was acceptable. He added that this had been built before the garage at 12 Fordington Road and that this had not followed its planning permission and abutted directly on to the neighbouring garage of 10 Fordington Road. John Attree also commented that there were at least 10 pairs of houses on the road which had less of a gap than was proposed in this application. It was noted that there was a lot of variation in the area and the applicants did not believe that the proposal would be out of keeping.

It was noted that the side windows would be obscured and fire rated. It was stated that, in Fordington Road, there were a number of double storey windows and houses with stairwells on the side of the site. John Attree stated that all of the other, major points of design from the pre-application meeting had been followed by the applicants.

In relation to the proposed basement, it was noted that the applicants had a basement consultant, Morwena Corrie, and that a Basement Impact Assessment had been submitted following the pre-application meeting. It was explained that intrusive works would be carried out which would include a ground movement assessment. It was added that the site currently had puddling but that this dissipated without intervention; it was suggested that, as a result of the proposal, the formal drainage routine would improve the site.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Some members of the Committee acknowledged that opinions differed over the aesthetics of the proposal and enquired why the design would create the appearance of half a house. The applicant team stated that they had been advised that a gable end would make an ideal end to the run of houses. It was noted that there were at least eight other gabled ends in the area. It was added that, given the variety of styles in the area and the pre-application guidance provided by the council, the design was considered to be reasonable.

·         The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the proposal was considered to be the best solution as the hipped roof mirrored the site to the north east and the profile matched the rest of the terrace. It was considered that the gable end was relatively harmless to the neighbouring properties, which were reasonably distant and well screened, and there would be a minimal impact on daylight, sunlight, and neighbouring gardens. It was added that the proposal was a visually interesting gable, was considered to have an interesting design, and that there were a range of existing styles in the area.

Following a vote with 7 votes for and 2 votes against, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

Cllr Ibrahim did not take part in the voting for this item as she was not present for the full item.