Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, the access being unsatisfactory and failure to comply with the Council’s standards on separation distances and space about dwellings.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations sheet where two further letters of objection were detailed along with an amendment to the conditions in the recommendation which included the deletion of condition nine and the inclusion of three additional conditions.  Clarification was also included that the applicant’s agent had not confirmed how the applicant wished to pay the public open space contribution.

Planning permission for a three bedroom dwelling house had been granted on 2 December 2008 and expired on 1 December 2013 which included off road parking for No. 6 Fern Leigh.  Due to the economic climate, the site remained undeveloped with the application proposing an additional unit on the site to improve its prospect for development by providing two new affordable homes with parking to both the front and rear of the properties.  The officer detailed the distances from the Club building and no. 6 Fern Leigh and explained that, even though the proposals included the siting of a dwelling only a short distance from the rear of no. 6, this property was sited at an angle.  It was therefore considered that the proposals would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of loss of light or privacy. 

                        Ms. J. Stewart spoke against the application explaining that her concerns were on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy and issues of parallel parking with cars having to reverse from the garages onto the road.  She also raised concern at the noise from the Workingmen’s Club which had been reported to the police.    

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the site already had extant permission so the principle of development had been established.  He referred to the comments about the Workingmen’s Club but said that there were no reports of disturbances and added that purchasers of the properties would be aware of the existence of the club before they bought the dwellings.  He felt that there were no legitimate planning reasons to refuse the application. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones referred to differences between this proposal and the application which had been approved in December 2008 and commented upon the access onto the unadopted road onto which vehicles would have to reverse.  He also referred to the difference in height from the original proposal and the noise from the club which he felt would be significant.  He referred to the lack of a play area for children who might live in the properties.  He felt that the issues of noise, access onto the unadopted road and the differences from the previous proposal were reasons to refuse this application. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford asked for clarification on the definition of tandem development and queried why the applicant was able to make a payment in lieu of open space provision.  In response the officer said that if there were two or more dwellings, the applicant had to provide an amount of open space or a payment in lieu of this, which was in accordance with the Local Planning Guidance note.  He added that the sum of £1,100 per dwelling was to maintain existing play areas in the vicinity.  The officer and Development Manager provided an explanation of tandem development.    

            Councillor M.J. Peers felt that this proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.  He sought clarification on the distances from the Workingmen’s Club and the neighbouring properties and queried whether the application complied with space around dwellings guidance.  Councillor P.G. Heesom concurred that the proposal was overdevelopment and over-intensification as he felt that there was only room for one dwelling on the site.  

            The officer said that the application did not meet separation distances as proposed but that the existing property was at an angle so there would be no significant loss of privacy for either set of occupiers.  The Development Manager added that the proposed dwellings were not directly in line with the existing properties so the distances stated in the Guidance Note were not directly applicable. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell disagreed that the plot was too small, pointed out that there had not been any objections from Highways and that one of the parking spaces was for the existing dwelling. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was LOST.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, the access being unsatisfactory and failure to comply with the Council’s standards on separation distances and space about dwellings.