Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above, recommended for refusal in respect of its harmful impact on the visual amenity of the locality and character of the area.  It is at Committee at the request of former Councillor Chard.

Public Speaking:

Mr Day, applicant, in support

Has applied to improve his home, which is situated in an area with no planning restrictions, and where all the properties have been developed in different ways.  It is a family home for his own family and foster children, and the proposal has been designed in partnership with the community, from where there have been no objections.  Officers have two concerns:  firstly that the profile will dominate the street scene, but the proposed dwelling will be exactly the same depth and width as the original.  Houses along the road have higher rooflines, so how can this be said to dominate?  Is passionate about this proposal and getting approval, and has agreed to a number of revisions which have resulted in lost roof space and an additional bedroom for his own children and foster children.  The other concern is the roof tiles; would like to use grey slate, as the previously used red/brown tiles weather badly.  This has full support from the parish council, local councillors, and 100% of residents who have the same frustrations with their roofing materials.  The application complies with the planning regulations in policy CP7.  With the approval of the parish council, former Councillor Chard, the current ward councillor, an unprecedented level of support from neighbours and no objections, asks that Members support the scheme, with the full confidence of the community.

Andrew Chard, in support

Cannot say much more than this.  The application has the full support of neighbours – Planning Committee is more used to hearing objection s from neighbours – and will allow Mr and Mrs Day to develop their home without making any difference to the street scene.  The Parish Council is happy with it, so asks Planning Committee to back Mr Day and allow him to develop his home for his wife, two children and foster children.

Member debate:

HM:  the refusal reason states that the development would result in harmful impact and dominate the street scene, not in keeping with local policies which say that the character and scale of the area should be respected.  However, the NPPF says different, at Paragraph 63 encouraging outstanding and innovative design, and at Paragraph 65 that incompatibility with the existing townscape is OK if mitigated by good design.  This design is innovative.  The houses were all originally bungalows but have all had various works done to them over the years, with no particular standard apart from the height and width which has been maintained here.  Is minded to support.

BF:  agrees.  It is a common thing nowadays that people buy an address.  In this row of bungalows, no two are the same, and none of them are what you would call architectural gems.  Looked recently at a house at Albemarle Gate, which has completely changed and was permitted under delegation, and at Naunton Park Road, an application was approved which changed the area.  This is a good design, and the width and height are not changed.  The street scene is varied, so this does no harm.  Doesn’t like uniformity, and this scheme will provide a good family home.

KS:  could vote to approve on pain of death if the proposal had clay tiles.  Has made a concerted effort to look around the neighbourhood and there are no houses with grey slate roof tiles.  Clay tiles should be conditioned.  There is a mix of tiles in the row, but none of them are grey; this is a distinctive feature of the area.  We have to be consistent, and permit if necessary, but with a condition for clay tiles.  Agrees with the officers that having the eaves end facing the road and also a balcony seems wrong – none of the other houses are like this.  If all else is the same but with red roof tiles to ensure rhythm and continuity in the street.  BF says he likes change but there is a distinct style here, and we should listen to officers.  This proposal will look very, very distinctive if permitted as it is.

PT:  has had a complete change of mind while listening to the discussion.  When first looking at the report and drawings, understood what officers were saying and fully supported their conclusions but is now not so sure having listened to BF and the others. Remembers another application in a road of traditional houses with ordinary pitched roofs, where Members of Planning Committee were horrified that the roof totally and utterly at odds with every other house in the street, but officers thought it was innovative; it was permitted and built.  Is prepared to vote for this proposal.

SW:  feels that he and KS are lone voices here, fully in support of the officers.  Looking at the street, there are no two houses the same but all are variations on a similar theme. Rooves slope sideways and from front to back and there are various dormers,but this proposal will create a totally different house.  Is not happy and considers the front gable a step too far and cannot vote in support. 

CM:  looking at the street scene, no two rooves are identical, so what is proposed won’t dominate the road.  It is innovative and carefully designed; is more for it than against it.  All the houses have been changed, and this will enhance the road.

PB:  this is a great design.  Was the Architects’ Panel consulted?  Does have concerns about the roof tiles however, and would support KS regarding this.

MJC, in response:

-       does not have a great deal more to say than what is set out in the officer report, and KS has given a good description of why this is not a good design;

-       officers have considered the uniformity of the street and the long views, and the gable coming forward will not fit in well.  The design has some merit, but officers do not consider it innovative and it is contextually inappropriate;

-       the rhythm of the street is the ridge of the chalet bungalows, and the Local Plan requires new development to complement the locality – this doesn’t, though appreciates that some Members don’t agree with this;

-       if Members are minded to support the scheme, it is very important that the red roof tiles should be retained, and this should be added as a condition.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

4 in support

10 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

CM:  it shouldn’t be forgotten that the whole community has signed up to say that the design is OK with the slate tiles.

KS:  are there any other conditions we should include?

MJC, in response:

-       no, though after the meeting, would like to check whether to remove PD for additional openings on side should be removed; this additional condition could be agreed with Chair and Vice-Chair if  necessary.

Vote on KS’s move to condition red clay roof tiles

9 in support

5 in objection

1 abstention

CARRIED

Vote on officer move to agree with Chair and Vice-Chair whether any other condition regarding PD rights and openings is required

15 in support – unanimous

CARRIED