Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).  

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) which sought full permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling including a vehicular cross-over. The application plot measured approximately 0.290 hectares in area and was currently laid to lawn, shrubs and a few trees. The surrounding area was residential in character including bungalows to the south and a row of terraced two storey dwellings north of the site.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor Paul Zukowskyj due to the number of objections received from neighbours.

Sarah Biggs, Objector, stated that she lived at 3 Booths Close and was speaking on behalf of neighbours in Booths Close and Skimpans Close who objected to the proposal. The proposal did not fully include the area opposite Booths Close and there would be significant impact on the two adjoining properties also in Skimpans Close and the four housing opposite in Booths Close. She felt that the planning is inaccurate as the planning application stated that no trees will be removed which was untrue and felt that the proposal was a significant overdevelopment of a small garden area and plot with a number of dwellings in close proximity. It will have significant impact on the properties opposite through loss of sunlight in the winter and loss of daylight throughout the year. Previously numbers 2, 3, 4 Booths Close enjoyed a view of trees which have already been cut down and the trees did not block out light as the house will. The proposed property will look directly into the bedrooms of numbers 2, 3 and 4 Booths Close significantly reducing privacy and will be very close to the front window of number 3 Booths Close. There will be a significant impact on parking in a very small road and the plan has parking for two cars in Booths Close but this will displace cars that already use that space to park in that area and cars parked right up to the junction which will cause congestion in the area. It is a relatively quiet close and the building work will be very disruptive. The proposed noise restrictions will not be beneficial as the objector is a night worker and will be very noisy and disruptive.

Members asked about the bedrooms as one of the bedrooms is quite small and does not meet the nationally described space standards. Officers stated that was correct and stated that although bedroom 3 has a floor area less than the recommended size of a one bedspace by 1.7m2, it has a width of 2.4m which exceeds the recommended width set out in the NDSS.

Members asked what weight should be given as one of the rooms does not comply with the nationally describe space standards. Officers stated that limited weight should be given due to the fact that it exceeds the recommended width set out in the nationally described space standards. Balance has been struck between room size and width.

Members asked about the garden at the proposed dwelling and if there will be enough garden for the new site and will it have enough garden for 35 Skimpans Close? Officers stated that the site will have adequate outdoor amenity space.

Members asked about the sub-station and there being possible concern on the impact of the amenity of that and for future occupiers of that building: would it be possible to see that there is a condition proposed about getting a noise impact assessment. Members asked if it relies on UK Power Networks to do that and what happens if they don’t or find that the noise can be made quiet to an acceptable standard? Officers stated that based on the discussions had with the Public Health and Protection officer, generally sub-stations are not too noisy but just to make sure that satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers they have recommended a noise mitigation condition to be place. It was noted that there was a fence around the sub-station and there is already a distance between the sub-station itself and the fence. Officers stated that there was enough separation distance from the sub-station itself and the flank wall of the proposed property which was about six metres.

Members stated that the proposal development could be considered as overdevelopment and that the impact to the properties to the side and opposite particularly loss of light, loss of view of trees and their general impact on their amenity. Officers stated that in terms of overdevelopment there is sufficient outdoor amenity space to serve the property and there is also space for the onsite car parking and not classed as overdevelopment. In terms of loss of light, given the distance between the proposed dwelling and number 3 Booths Close there is enough separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the properties opposite. In terms of trees, there was no tree protection of the trees that were on the site which was part of the garden for no 35 although they were removed they did not require planning permission for the trees to be removed.

Members asked if the parking at the property meets the Council’s parking standards. Officers stated that there was a shortfall of 0.5 car parking space but given the sustainable location, it is considered to be acceptable. It was noted that this was not a legitimate reason to refuse the application.

Members asked about the construction work at the property and what weight members should give to that. Officers stated that limited weight should be given as it is common practice that if there is construction in an area there is bound to be noise but there is a condition which restricts the construction times.

Members asked in terms of design whether this property will have aluminium windows and whether any of the surrounding properties did. Officers stated that none of the properties had aluminium windows and this would not impact the character of the area.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors J.Broach and D.Richardson to refuse the application and

RESOLVED:

(9 in favour, 3 against and 1 Abstention)

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

•The proposed development would result in overdevelopment.

•The site will be an unduly cramped site contrary to D1 and D2.

•The third bedroom does not meet the nationally required space standards.