Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

                        - overbearing impact

                        - overshadowing

                        - loss of amenity

                        - overdevelopment. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained the main issues for consideration.  A number of objections, which were detailed in the report, had been received but the application was reported for approval. 

                        Mr. D. Fizsimon spoke against the application on behalf of the residents of the neighbouring property.  The principle was acceptable but the proposed dwelling was much taller than nearby dwellings and was closer to the boundary than the current dwelling.  He highlighted paragraph 7.08 which reported the impact on the lounge window of the neighbours at Hill Green but there was also the main bedroom window on the same wall which had not been considered in the report.  Mr. Fitzsimon said that Council guidelines indicated that there should be a separation distance from habitable rooms of 12 metres but there was only a gap of 5.5 metres so this was insufficient and did not comply with the guidelines.  The patio area was also important to the residents of Hill Green, but this would be overshadowed by the proposed dwelling.  He urged Members to refuse the application due to the overbearing nature of the development and its non-compliance with policies HSG1 and GEN 1.    

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She referred to the proposed increase in floorspace of 324% and the lack of compliance with guidelines about distances between dwellings.  There was no mention in the report of the loss of light on the neighbouring dwelling and she queried the design which appeared to show that vehicles had to drive through the building to access the garage.  Councillor Halford felt that the application should be refused as the size of the dwelling was unfair to residents and did not comply with Council guidelines. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman raised concern about the loss of amenity for the neighbours and queried whether a single storey extension could be included on the side of the dwelling nearest to the bungalow to reduce the height of the building.  She referred to paragraph 7.11 which she felt was misleading as the feature of the parking/turning provision was not typical of the area, as was suggested in the report.  Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that the proposed dwelling was in keeping with the area and added that the guideline for percentage increases in footprints applied outside the settlement boundary in the open countryside, so was therefore not appropriate for this application as the site was within the settlement boundary. 

            In response to a query from Councillor Richard Lloyd about increases over 50% of the original footprint, the Planning Strategy Manager explained that the existing dwelling covered 72 sq. m. and the proposed dwelling was 168 sq. m. but the plot was within a settlement and was large enough to support the dwelling proposed.  The parking arrangement was not unusual and the distances of 12 metres between dwellings mentioned earlier was not applicable as this proposal was from  side to side and provided 5.5 metre separation.  The impact on the bedroom window had been considered and the height of the roof in relation to the boundary had been reduced so it was felt that the impact was appropriate. 

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to a plan which had been circulated to the Committee Members showing how the light to the bedroom would be affected by the proposal and asked for Officers to comment on the issue.  The Development Manager advised that the document had not been received by officers but that the impact on the neighbouring property had been fully assessed.  The Democracy & Governance Manager suggested a short adjournment to allow officers to view the plan, and this was duly proposed, seconded and agreed. 

            Following the adjournment, the officer said that the plan showed the path of the sun and that for the majority of the day it would be on the opposite side of the dwelling to the bedroom so would not impact on the bungalow until the latter part of the day.  The Development Manager commented on the plan which referred to the 45 degree rule as reported in Local Planning Guidance 1.  He detailed when the rule was applicable but explained that this was not a reason to refuse the application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Halford said that this was an outrageous development which conflicted with Council policies and was overdevelopment and had an overbearing impact on the neighbours.  She also felt that the application would result in loss of amenity and would overshadow the neighbouring property.  Councillor Halford felt that the proposed floorspace exceeded policy guidelines and that space around dwellings guidance had also not been complied with.  She also disagreed with the comments of the officer in paragraph 8.02 of the report. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application (on the grounds of overbearing impact, overshadowing, loss of amenity and overdevelopment), against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.       

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

                        - overbearing impact

                        - overshadowing

                        - loss of amenity

                        - overdevelopment.