Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) seeking full permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling including a vehicular cross-over.

 

Councillor Paul Zukowskyj has called-in the application because it is

considered to be in a sensitive location and has generated significant public concerns.

 

The application site comprises land that was previously the rear garden of No. 35 Skimpans Close. The site is accessed from Booths Close. The site is bounded to the south by the rear garden of No. 35 Skimpans Close. To the east lies the rear garden of No. 37 Skimpans Close. To the west is No. 20 Booths Close which is a two-storey detached property. There is an electricity substation to the north-east of the site. Opposite the site is a row four of two storey terraced properties.

 

This application is a resubmission following the refusal of a similar planning application at the 28 July 2022 Development Management Committee. The previous application was refused by DMC for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development would result in overdevelopment

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

3.         The third bedroom did not meet the nationally described space standards

 

This application overcomes reason 3 for refusal only. The size of the third bedroom has been increased and now meets the standard bedroom size requirements set out in the NDSS.

 

The proposed new dwelling was considered to be acceptable in this location under application 6/2022/0685/FULL.

 

The proposal comprises of a pitched roof dwelling consisting of brickwork and aluminium finishing for the windows and doors. Although the proposed types of external materials would be acceptable, the colours have not been specified.

 

The surrounding area has a mix of house types and varying plot sizes. The adjoining property at No. 20 Booths Close is a two-storey detached. The row of terraced two storey dwellings directly opposite the site feature pitched roofs and red brickwork.

 

Overall, the height, scale, layout, design and appearance of the proposed development, would adequately respect and relate to the overall character of the area. The new plot size would be comparable to others nearby. 

 

Overall, the proposal would have an acceptable standard of design, and would comply with local and national policies.

 

With regards to No 20 Booths Close, there are no first-floor windows on the west elevation, therefore there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy to No. 20 Booths Close. Due to the separation distance between the application site and No. 20 Booths Close and the fact that No. 20’s side elevation is east facing and receives daylight most of the day, it is considered that the proposal would not impact this adjoining property in terms of loss of light.

 

The proposed first floor side (east) elevation window would have an overlooking impact on occupiers of No. 37 Skimpans Close. Given that this a landing window, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to require it to be obscure glazed in order to maintain the privacy of this neighbouring property. Whilst there is potential for overlooking to parts of the rear gardens of neighbouring properties at Nos. 33, 35 Skimpans Close and the front of the terraced properties at No. 2, 3 and 4 Booths Close, the degree of overlooking would be consistent with a neighbouring relationship generally expected between residential properties.

 

Overall, the proposed dwelling has been designed, orientated and positioned in such a way to minimise overlooking, loss of privacy and light to adjoining and future occupiers in accordance with local and national policies.

 

The proposed dwelling would benefit from external amenity space of approximately 73m2. It is considered that the proposal would provide adequate outdoor amenity space for future occupiers. The outdoor amenity space would be comparable to some gardens in the immediate vicinity.

 

With regards to the electricity substation adjacent to the site, UK Power Networks were consulted on this application, and they have no objection subject to a condition requiring accurate records of the position of the underground cables to be obtained before construction works begins on site.

 

The Council’s Public Health and Protection Team. They have advised that in order to protect the occupants of the new development from likely noise disturbance from the sub-station, a planning condition should be attached requiring noise mitigation measures to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The floorspace is considered to be generally acceptable (Nationally Described Space Standards) This application overcomes reason 3 for refusal. All the bedroom sizes meet the standard bedroom size requirements set out in the NDSS.

 

Access to the site will be via a proposed new vehicle crossing from Booths Close. The Highway Authority have been consulted and they have confirmed that their comments on the previous application remain relevant. Previously, they considered the proposal to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring details of vehicular access to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Given that the site is located within close proximity to public transport as well as facilities and services in Welham Green, it is considered that the proposed parking provision is acceptable in this case.

 

In terms of car parking, a total of six neighbour objections were raised regarding the lack of parking around the application site.  Booths Close has had previous issues with car parking evidenced by the current car parking restrictions in the area. The proposal would provide adequate on-site parking. Although there would loss of street parking due to the proposed dropped kerb, the proposal would not result in any significantly adverse impact on the highway to warrant a reason for refusal.

 

In summary the proposed development would deliver one additional dwelling in a Borough where a shortfall in housing has been identified. Short term economic benefits would also arise from the construction of the development. Social and environmental benefits arising from the development would include the provision of a comfortable new home within walking distance to shops and services.

 

Subject to the suggested planning conditions, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the relevant local and national policies and is recommended for approval.

 

Tom Penrose, Applicant, stated:

 

I am the owner of the land to the rear of 35 Skimpans Close. We have had the land in my family for the last for 30 years, so I'm no stranger to the local area.  Last time the application was heard a couple of councillors said they can't see how it can be refused the application. It won't win any awards for best looking house, but it is a well needed practical house in the local area. We have had approval from all the local planning officers, waste collection, and road and traffic people. We had to make a couple of amendments to the size of the third bedroom as this was brought up in previous meeting. I personally don't think it is overdeveloping the plot of land. I have tried to keep it in context with the houses in Booths Close and Nash close. The only reason this has been brought to you is that one Councillor has put it forward as local residents in Booths close and a couple from Skimpans Close have objected to this and I knew people would. Most of the objections are not enough parking in the road. They will lose two valuable parking spaces which is a privilege to have a not a right, but approximately 8 metres down the road there is 26 metres of kerb with no line where people can park easily four to five cars that no one uses at the present moment. The main other reason was loss of light, which I don't believe will happen as number 1 to 4 Bruce Close are on the other side of the road, which will make a gap of approximately 20 to 25 metres and to the left of number 20 approximately a gap of 7 to 8 metres. Until we had the trees removed from there, they were taller than the proposed house, so blocking out the same or even more light to Booths Close and number 20. We have had the same issues with number 20, asking them to cut down their 20-30ft conifer trees for lack of light for years and they still remain. I’m building this house for my family, not just to sell it and make a profit. When my grandparents, who had the bungalow before got old and eventually passed, it was a great pressure on my parents to make sure they were OK daily. My wife wants to be close to her Mum and Dad as they are getting older now and to look after them who now own number 35 Skimpans Close. Residents of Booths Close also said about the upheaval to the road while the work is going on. I've been in the building game since I left school 27 years ago, to be fair, it is no more different than someone doing an extension. Lorries coming and going. It's down to the builder, and I pride myself on a well-run, clean and tidy site and working with the local neighbours as we all need to work and live there to get on to make everyone's life easier.

 

Sarah Biggs, Objector, stated:

 

I am speaking on behalf of the residents of Booths Close and Skimpans Close, who have again objected to this planning application. This application was previously discussed here a few months ago in August and was refused. You rejected it on the grounds of overdevelopment of a small garden area and that the site will be unduly cramped. Nothing has changed with this subsequent application, apart from the dimensions of one of the rooms. Our objections remain unchanged. In summary, over development of a small back garden area, the proposed building will dominate the space. Properties at 1-4 Booths Close have been omitted from the plan, the proposed dwelling will only be 13 metres from the front of the house opposite. This new development will affect the daylight and sunlight into all these properties, particularly during the winter months. There will be a loss of privacy. The development will overlook the properties at 1-4 Booths Close. The property at 4 Booths Close is already overlooked at the rear and this development will result in a significant loss of privacy. Number 37 Skimpans Close will be significantly impacted by the proposed development. It is shown in outline on the plan but has not been numbered. There is a bungalow on this land which would be completely dominated by the two-storey development. The side elevation will start 1.3 metres away from their fence and rise to a height of 10 to 12 metres causing a significant loss of light. Booths Close is very narrow with one pavement, on-street parking is already a problem. The plans show parking spaces for 2 cars, although the scale would suggest only space for one car. Cars already park in that area, so there will be no benefit. The photograph was taken at time of day when people were at work and cars were away from the site. The plot is described as vacant, but there is a property on the plot. Therefore, this application is for a property in addition to the existing property, not a replacement property as claimed. The applicant states that he lives in the existing property, but he does not. More trees will have to be removed to build the house, they may not have a TPO, however, the planning request again says that no trees need to be removed and this is again incorrect. We would ask the committee to reject this proposal.

 

Members discussed the application and a summary of the main points raised are shown below:

 

Members were advised that limited weight should be given to the construction traffic as this is a temporary measure.

 

Officers confirmed that access to this dwelling will be separate to the existing house.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the lack of on street parking and the loss of parking spaces from the road. It was noted there were no objections from Highways. Parking Services have advised that the loss of on-street parking would be an insufficient impact on the highway to warrant refusal and were advised not to give significant weight to this.

 

Members noted that the dwelling is for personal use and asked if a condition could be added so it is not to be sold separately or rented out. Legal advice was that this would be inappropriate in the circumstances, because the planning officer is recommending that it's a policy compliant scheme.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to plot size. Officers advised that this is comparable to other plot sizes and buildings in the surrounding area.

 

Concerns were raised about the loss of trees.  Officers confirmed that none of the trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Ecology and biodiversity would be improved through a landscaping condition which would result in a modest increase in biodiversity.

 

Concerns were raised about the proximity to an electricity substation. Officers confirmed that UK Power Networks have advised that for a two-storey dwelling, a substation which is enclosed by brick, has to be at least 1 metre away. In this case it is about approximately 6 metres.

 

Concerns were raised about the loss of light to numbers 2 and 3 Booths Close. Officers said there is an acceptable separation distance between the application site and those properties.

 

Concerns were raised about the height of the proposed dwelling being higher than 20 Booths Close. Officers said that according to the proposed street view it is marginally higher so in their opinion negligible.

 

Members noted the requirement of electric vehicle charging for all new developments and requested that a condition for this be added.

 

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor S. Tunstall and seconded by Councillor J. Cragg to approve the application.

 

 

            RESOLVED:

(10 in favour, and 2 against) T. Travell recused herself for this item

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report. With the additional condition added for the provision of an Electric Vehicle Charging point.