Agenda item

KH left the Council Chamber at the start of this debate

EP introduced the scheme as above, with access to Bouncers Lane by way of a driveway to the left of the site, adjacent to Newland Court.  The scheme has garages and parking to the front, and is at Committee at the request of the parish council.  It complies with all relevant policies, and the recommendation is therefore to approve, subject to conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mr Wilce, neighbour, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, in objection to the development of two dwellings in the rear garden of 66 Bouncers Lane, which will have a detrimental impact on areas of their garden.  At 2.5 of the Design and Access Statement, the applicant states that a precedent for this type of development has been set at Newland Court, but this is not comparable, as an unsightly factory was demolished to make way for that.  There is no precedent for rear garden development, and this scheme will cause harm to local amenity and fundamentally change the nature of this residential area.  The planning officer has addressed and amended the issue his daughter had with overlooking from the side windows, but not the front windows which are looking towards her garden and home.  With reference to points 3 and 15 of the application, which states that no preparatory work has been undertaken, in fact a 50-year-old oak tree has been felled, and other considerable tree surgery in the rear garden gives the impression that approval has already been given.  Protocol 1 Article 1 of the Human Rights Act allows people the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and home; here, the shared driveway will cause noise and disturbance in his daughter’s garden.  Urges Councillors to reject the scheme. 

Member debate:

CH:  the question has been raised about this proposal looking like back garden development.  This is important, as it would set a precedent – the house next door mirrors this one, and so on along the road.  Has been on Committee when it has approved a scheme for garden development, a whole street has then gone the same way, and the Committee wrings its hands and says ‘if only we hadn’t allowed the first one…’.  That consideration makes this a difficult scheme to judge.  The shared drive is not good, and it is very likely that other houses in the road will follow suit and thus spoil the character of the area.  Newlands Court was a very different proposal – a brownfield site, formerly a factory.  Would like officers to explore the issue more than they have done so far.

AL:  agrees with CH:  Newlands was built on a former industrial site, this proposal is for back garden development – they cannot be compared.  The SPD documents suggests that developments need to be two more more houses to create a unique identity for areas.  Here Newlands Court is already established and has set up the identity of the area; two houses won’t create their own unique identity.

EP, in response:

-       the Garden Land and Infill Site SPD gives advice on how to assess schemes such as this, especially on garden land.  It is clear that this is not automatically unacceptable but that potential issues need to be considered;

-       officers have looked at all these issues – grain, type of housing, location of buildings on plot, plot width etc – and consider this proposal ticks all the boxes.  It responds to the character of the area, similar to Newlands Court, follows the building line, is in keeping with the character and is therefore in keeping with the advice in the document;

-       there is no other development in this backland position in the area but this development has responded to the requirements;

-       regarding precedent, there are no obvious places for similar development, with similarly wide side access.  This is not to say that someone might come along with a similar scheme, but this is hypothetical and cannot affect the decision today – that bridge would have to be crossed when we come to it;

-       as far as officers are concerned, the proposal complies with all requirements

CH:  if the vote goes against officer recommendation to permit, would like to propose refusal.  This scheme presents a dilemma; if the site next door comes up with a similar application, Members will be told that there is not precedent, permission will be granted, and the outlook and nature of the original line of houses will be spoilt.  Cannot accept that Newlands Court makes this a viable development; it was a brownfield site.  Understands the guidelines and that each application must be decided on its own merits, but it seems that this is too much like what we are trying to avid.  Urges people to refuse the scheme.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention (KH – out of room)

PERMIT