Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 18/00900/FP be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Erection of two detached 4-bed dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and double garage.

 

The Development and Conservation Manage presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/00900/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that St Ippolyts Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that it was over development of the site.

 

Mrs Carol Zemmen thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee objecting to application 18/00900/FP.

 

Mrs Zemmen advised that it was easy to look at the Millstone site though tinted spectacles.

 

At this time of year, the house was hidden behind beautiful flowering trees and shrubs although in autumn the house would be visible and the restrictions of the site would be seen.

 

Two town houses jammed close together, right against Field House would be totally out of character in this semi rural locality.

 

St Ipployts Parish Council unanimously agreed that these proposals were unsuitable for the site and there had been many objections submitted.

 

In respect of design, the Planning Office had commented in the report that she had concern that the form was contrary to the character of the surrounding area, advising that the neighbouring houses had wide, shallower footprint.

 

She was right to be concerned, narrow and deep houses with tall narrow gables were not in sync with the surrounding houses and introducing this type of town house in a county lane was detrimental to the area and would set a poor precedent.

 

Houses in the lane were central to their boundary and not jammed in on their plots.

 

The proposed plan would take the majority of light from the two south west facing windows of Field House, which did not show in the drawings.

 

With the flat roof garage next door, light and sun stream through these down stairs rooms, with this proposal the lounge would look straight onto a 10 mete long 5-8 metre high wall, which meant the dining room would receive no south west sun.

 

She accepted that Field House was not entitled to a view, but was entitled to light

 

This tall east wall would cast a shadow over Field House’s patio at the rear, creating a shaded dead zone.

           

The Officer stated that Field House had a large garden, did this make up for the south wets facing light being shadowed by a massive brick structure most of the year.

 

Paragraph 4.3.7 acknowledged that there would be a substantial degree of harm both in actual and perceived harm on Field House and Paragraph 4.3.9 acknowledged that the proposal would result in new shading of the patio area.

 

Thee were no garages included in the initial plan, however those proposed in the modified plan were only 75 percent of the stipulated size requirement and therefore were not adequate as parking space, as suggested by planners.

 

The applicant stated that they would not count either garage as parking accommodation.

 

There were only two designated parking spaces for each house, arguably this met the criteria, but this project differed in that Mill Lane offered no place to go and no street parking.

 

There were absolutely no options for overspill parking in the lane and these two spaces would not cater for visitors, deliveries etc. and would surely result in the spoiling of the front garden which would become an expanding mess.

 

The application stated that the two storey form of the proposed dwellings would be no greater in depth than the existing property and the neighbouring Field House, this was simply not true and not upheld by the drawings.

 

The two proposed houses had been brought forward of the Millstone footprint, the front elevation of the right-hand house extended approximately 3 metres forward in front of Field House, blocking light and 7 metres forward of the Mill Farm site.

 

Mill Lane was a narrow lane single lane road, with absolutely no possibility of parking.

 

During the building phase it would cause chaos to the surrounding properties and to the natural traffic flow of the lane.

 

The addition of another property would certainly add to the traffic situation.

 

It was especially important to consider that a residential care home was situated opposite Millstone and Field House, which had regular deliveries in large vans as well as needing 24 hour access for ambulances, fire engines, paramedics and community nurses.

 

Mrs Zemmen concluded by stating that, based on the unsuitability of this proposal including over development of the site and the narrowness of Mill Lane, he asked that the Committee would support her and her neighbours by opposing this contentious application.

 

The Chairman thanked Mrs Zemmen for her presentation.

 

Ms Karen Cowder-James, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 18/00900/FP.

 

Ms Crowder-James advised Members that she was a planning consultant with over 20 years experience and was a career long member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

 

This proposal was for a policy compliant development of an existing residential plot that would result in the net gain of an additional 4 bedroomed family dwelling.

 

The site was within the urban settlement, but outside of the Green Belt.

 

The existing dwelling on this site was in need of modernisation to bring the property up to current standards and it occupied a small part of a large site, which did not make the most efficient use of the site. It was for these reasons that the owner of the site sought pre-application advice for a potential development.

 

The principle of sub-divisions of the site was accepted during the pre-application stage, although concerns were raised over the original design.

 

Accordingly, a revised scheme was submitted, but the Council considered that the revisions did not fully address their concerns.

 

Therefore, that application was withdrawn and a revised application submitted that now addressed all of the previously raised design concerns.

 

The application had been called in for the reason that little had changed since the previous proposal except there is one bedroom less for each property. This was not the case.

 

The proposed dwellings had been significantly reduced, including a reduction in footprint and floor areas. This had resulted in the loss of a bedroom in each property, but they were also smaller in size, with the depth being reduced by 3.5 Metres and the depth of the first floor now being the same as the existing house.

 

The previously proposed crown roof had been replaced by a traditional pitch so that the eaves line was now lower than the neighbouring property, the rear tall and long lounge structures had also been replaced by a narrow flat roof structure, so that the roof line and design of the roof were commensurate with neighbouring properties.

 

In addition, the siting of the dwellings was altered so that they were parallel with each other, rather than splayed. The right hand house moved further away from the side and rear of the neighbouring property and the siting had been positioned so that the rear windows were angled away from the rear garden, adjacent neighbour. The changes also introduced a single garage for each property.

 

The buildings would be placed to the rear of the site in order to retain the open nature and the existing boundary landscaping would also be retained so that the development was softened and embedded into the existing topography. The proposed materials also matched the surrounding development to ensure consistency in appearance.

 

The acceptability of the design was a view shared by the professional officer, furthermore the proposal was fully compliant with all relevant Local Plan Policy.

 

In terms of traffic impact, Highways agreed that the proposed development would not give rise to a demonstrable increase in traffic generation that would affect the flow of traffic or highway safety along Mill Lane. The proposal actually improved highway safety, as cars could only currently reverse onto Mill Lane whereas the application allowed for vehicles to turn around within the site so that they could enter and leave facing forward.

 

With regard to perceived neighbour impact, it was important to remember that the site already accommodated a dwelling, with windows on the rear elevation, which already overlooked the garden of the neighbouring property. In addition, the one flanking window to Field House, which was a secondary lounge window, currently looked out onto the side of the existing garage. As such the perceived impact was not as great as it would be if this was a previously undeveloped site.

 

Furthermore, the short extent of the forward projection of the building would not be unacceptably overbearing or over dominant to Field House.

 

Whilst the neighbouring property was concerned about the loss of sunlight to the patio at the rear, the officer confirmed that such a small area would be affected that no material weight could be given to this concern.

 

With regard to setting a precedent, Members were no doubt aware that each individual application should be determined on its own merits and in respect of the covenant, this was not a planning matter and so should not be a material concern in determination of this application.

 

None of the potential concerns raised by objectors were justifiable reasons upon which to base a valid and defensible planning refusal, and as such would not form a robust case if this were appealed.

 

Ms Crowder-James concluded by advising that the applicant had listened to all previous concerns raised by the Council and had amended the scheme to fully address these concerns.

 

This was how the planning system should work and was a good testament to the collaborative ethos of officers.

 

In her professional opinion there were no valid planning reasons to refuse permission and she requested that Members support the officer’s recommendations to grant planning permission.

 

The Chairman thanked Ms Crowder-James for her presentation

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that, in respect of sunlight/daylight, the 3 metre projection at the rear of the property was single storey and explained how daylight and sunlight was calculated There was not going to be a demonstrable loss of daylight therefore a daylight/sunlight test would not be required and a refusal on these grounds was not sustainable.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted permission, subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the repot and:

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/00900/FP be GRANTED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.