Meeting documents

Application proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling and garage.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He provided members with several updates including:

·         On page 41 of the agenda, under principle of development, reference had been made to a separate application 14/03436/DPO. He confirmed that since the agenda had been published, that application had been approved.

·         On page 42 of the agenda, under residential amenity, reference had been made to the height of the proposed garage, he clarified that the report should have read 2m to eaves and 3.35m to ridge height.

·         Since the agenda had been published, a comment from the Council’s Drainage Engineer had been received in respect of flood risk. He had advised there was no particular flood risk issue. However Environment Agency mapping indicated some potential surface water flood risk locally and so he suggested to be free of risk that finished floor levels were raised by 150mm.

The Planning Officer noted that if members were minded to approve the application and were in agreement with the Engineer’s suggestion, with the resulting increase in floor height and ridge height, that the changes were considered to be minor enough to be addressed by condition. He therefore suggested that condition 4 be amended to require the agreement of finished floor levels in writing rather than as the approved plans.

The officer recommendation was for approval, however some changes to conditions were suggested. Firstly the amendment to condition 4 as mentioned and it was also considered appropriate to:

·      Remove reference to construction operation hours in condition 6 as it specifically controlled by condition 7.

·      Addition of a further two conditions  to require agreement of boundary details and also removal of Permitted Development Rights for extensions and outbuildings.

Ms R Lee, spoke in objection to the proposal and noted the garage would be very close to the neighbouring bungalows, would loom over the bungalow gardens and block out light. She raised concerns about construction traffic and drainage. She felt the development was unnecessary and would detract enormously from the bungalows.

Ms F Rowswell, applicant, commented that the proposal would finish the site off and fitted in with current development policy. She noted no windows would directly overlook the neighbouring bungalows, and the height of the dwelling was limited by design with the dormer windows. Parking along the drive would continue to be allowed.

Ward member, Councillor Paul Thompson, commented that numbers 5 and 6 Buttle Close would probably be most affected. He noted there was nothing to stop either party putting up a fence, and that construction traffic would not be great as it was a single dwelling. He asked members to support the application.

In response to items raised during the discussion, the Planning Officer and Area Lead clarified:

·         The ridge height of the house and distance to the neighbouring bungalows.

·         There were guidelines regarding height of buildings, and distances to boundaries and neighbouring properties. In this case the distance varied as the proposed dwelling was offset.

·         Eave height of the proposed garage was unlikely to be much higher than the existing boundary fence.

·         The proposed garage required permission as part of it would be above 2.5m in height and the building would be within 2m of the boundary, but in effect the highest point would be more than 2 metres away from the boundary.

·         It was not felt there was a suitable alternative location for the garage within the plot.

During discussion mixed opinions were expressed by members, some felt there was little reason to refuse the application, while others felt the position of the garage would affect amenity of neighbours, and there were other options for siting of the garage or lowering the height.

The Area Lead advised, that if members were minded, the application could be refused on amenity value, or it could be deferred for further negotiation with the applicant regarding repositioning of the garage.

It was first proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation with the changes to conditions as suggested. On being put to the vote, the voting was 5 in favour and 5 against, the Chairman used his casting vote against the proposal and therefore the proposal was lost.

It was then proposed to defer the application to renegotiate with the applicant about repositioning the garage, and on being put to the vote was carried 9 in favour and 1 against.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)