Agenda item

BH introduced the application as above, at Committee at the request of Councillors Parsons and Lillywhite, due to neighbours’ concerns about parking and loss of light.  The officer recommendation is to permit.   

Public Speaking:

Mr Brooking, neighbour, in objection

Lives adjacent to 178 Prestbury Road, and is concerned about loss of daylight to his living space, and increased parking issues on Oakland Avenue, as set out in his letter dated 4^th October. Regarding loss of daylight and sunlight, the tests used by the local authority are set out by the Building Research Establishment, and the 25^o test uses scale drawings and relative distances to establish whether any new development is below 25^o relative to an existing window.    Calculations have been made based on the provided drawings, considering the relative positioning and distances between his kitchen window and the new structure, which offer a figure of 40^o, a significant breach of the test, yet the planning officer has stated that the proposal will ‘not result in unacceptable loss of light’.  Fails to find this statement a realistic and reassuring conclusion, especially as a 6m wall will sit just 4m from his kitchen window.  Regarding parking, Planning Portal Residential Parking Standards require a single 3-bedroomed detached house to have at least two off-road parking spaces.  In fact this proposal has only one.  In addition, the positioning of this space is such that a car cannot be easily manoeuvred into it, due to unrestricted parking along the development frontage, which means this space is only a notional one and unlikely to be of any practical use.  As a result, all vehicles will be parked on the road, adding to the existing congestion.  Finally, this development is a garden grabbing exercise, which takes away amenity space from three properties.

Mr Hill, applicant, in support

Members will be aware that Oakland Avenue is an attractive road with some impressive properties, and also his own, a storage yard with asbestos sheds strewn across it.  Following pre-application discussion 18 months ago, approached the neighbour to the rear of Prestbury Road and agreed that if the outcome was successful, to procure a small parcel of her rear garden to provide the new development with ample amenity space.  As well as the small number of objection letters, mostly relating to parking issues,  has received quite a lot of positive feedback particularly from nearby residents who will welcome the replacement of the unsightly yard with a new dwelling, which is almost a carbon copy of the property directly opposite and acts as a complimentary book end.  Regarding parking, would like to assure local residents that it has always been his intention to have off-road parking; this was expressed in the application but not shown on the original plans and may have caused concern.  The plans have now been amended to show clearly the off-road parking arrangements.  Has been open and honest with immediate neighbours throughout the process, explaining his intentions for the site, and if planning is approved, his life’s ambition of building his own home can be realised.  It is therefore important that he gets along with the neighbours. 

Member debate:

HM:  is concerned by comments from the first speaker, who does not feel that the light test has been satisfied.  Would like more advice from officers about this.

SW:  ditto.

BH, in response:

-       the basic 25^o light test assesses whether an existing window will be affected by new development, but only works with parallel development;

-       the lay-out of this site means that the proposed development is not parallel to the neighbour’s property, so an advanced light test has been used which calculates the areas the light is being taken from with reference to position;

-       that test concludes that the room in question will still be considered a well-lit room, based on orientation and outlook.

PT:  is the officer confirming that the objector’s figures are correct or not?  Is still confused. 

MJC, in response:

-       the 25^o light test is a crude assessment of whether or not light will be lost to a window.  A line is projected, and if it is breached, more work is needed.  A more detailed analysis looks at the amount of light reaching a window from around and over the adjacent building, and it doesn’t ultimately matter what angle it takes to get over the building;

-       officers have considered the amount of light the proposed gable will take from the neighbour’s window.  There is a lot of light between the building and the window, and the detailed assessment resulted in a clear pass;

-       another consideration is that the window in question is already compromised by an existing car port, which has an impact on the amount of light reaching the window.  The test was carried out as if the car port was not there, but officers were still satisfied that the proposal passes the test.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

2 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT