Agenda item

Demolition of disused garages and the erection of a three bed domestic dwelling with associated parking and grounds.

Cllr Bawden and Cllr Monks returned to the Council Chamber at 13:56.

 

Cllr Christopher left the meeting at 13:57.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Senior Planning Officer identified the site and explained the proposal, which consisted of the demolition of 3 disused garages and the erection of a 3-bedroom, 1.5 storey dwelling, with associated parking and ground works.

 

Plans of the site and proposed dwelling were shown to members and the relative distances to the neighbouring properties were provided. Photographs of the site in its current condition were also shown, as well as photographs from the garden of a neighbouring property, to give members an indication of the level of impact that the new dwelling would have on neighbouring amenity.

 

The application was considered to be acceptable in terms of design and amenity and highways had confirmed they were happy with the two off-road parking spaces provided. It was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

Mr Le Lerre spoke in objection to the application, as a resident of one of the neighbouring properties, he expressed that although he had no objection to the principle of development, the proposed dwelling was too large for the size of the plot and would result in loss of outlook and loss of sunlight for the neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Twigg spoke on behalf of Mr Tufnail, who was a resident of one of the neighbouring properties. He stated that the dwelling would cover half of the garden boundary to the neighbouring property and that the dwelling would also have a very small garden and cramped parking spaces.

 

Ms Rasch spoke in support of the application. She stated that the application fell within the Defined Development Boundary and that no detrimental impact would be caused to the neighbouring properties, as the view from the dormer window would look out towards the front of the property and all other windows were on the ground floor.

 

The Vice-chair read out a statement on behalf of Cllr Webb, a Ward Member for Rodwell and Wyke, who could not be present at the meeting. She noted that there was significant concern amongst the local residents about the scale and mass of the dwelling. She also raised concerns about procedural process for the application and cited the lack of a noise impact assessment, and no tree survey or asbestos report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that a noise impact assessment wasn’t required following consultation with the applicant, the garages already had consent to be demolished and the tree officer had determined that an on-site survey wasn’t required.

 

The following responses were provided to members questions:

·         It was considered that there was sufficient outside amenity space for occupiers of the dwelling to use.

·         There were two roof lights at a high level in the dwelling that would not allow a view of the neighbouring properties and a single dormer window to the front of the property, therefore officers did not consider there to be an issue with overlooking onto neighbouring properties.

·         The garden was approximately 34sqm, which was considered a sufficient size and there were two parking spaces available to the front of the property.

 

Several members raised concerns with the application, that included the size of the dwelling in relation to the size of the plot it was located on and a lack of outside space and the impact on neighbouring amenity from the construction of a large dwelling in close proximity to the existing neighbouring properties.

 

However, other members expressed that although they understood the concerns raised by other members of the committee, they did not feel that their concerns warranted refusal of the application.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Eysenck and seconded by Cllr Monks, that the application be granted.

 

Upon being put to a vote the motion fell.

 

The meeting adjourned from 14:50 – 15:00.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Wheller and seconded by Cllr Bawden, that the application be refused for the reason that the dwelling was oversized for the site resulting in a lack of amenity space and that it was out of keeping with the local area.

 

Upon being put to the vote the motion fell.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Northam and seconded by Cllr Monks, that the application be granted.

 

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.