Agenda item

LW introduced the scheme for a contemporary dwelling built in the side garden of 11 Bradley Road, part of the footpath, and the garden of 29 Croft Gardens.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillors Walklett and Bickerton.  Officers consider it to be a contrived form of development, not suitable for the plot, out of character, and causing significant harm to the amenity of 28 Croft Gardens, overbearing and overshadowing the garden.

Public Speaking:

Mr Berry, applicant, in support

Has lived in Bradley Road for five years with his wife and two children; likes the area and being part of the community.  In 2012, was granted permission to build a two-storey side extension on his house, but has since realised there is an opportunity to use the large space to the side of the house and the barely-used footpath to create an exciting new home, leaving the main house in its existing form.  There are  bungalows, three-storey flats, detached, semi-detached, many different styles in the area, and this  modern design will not look out of place.  The vast majority of neighbours agree;  five support, and only one objects, and there are conditions to cover their concerns, including frosted windows.  Would have expected more opposition if the proposal was a problem, and the Parish Council has no objection.  This is a sustainable location, with shops and public transport nearby, and this effective use of the site will take pressure off country sites.  There are issues with footpath,  but this is not a planning issue, and to be resolved. 

Member debate:

MC:  went on site visit and spent a lot of time looking at this site, and photos from the agent.  Doesn’t like the proposal – a bit of land from one house, a bit from another, re-siting the footpath, even though we are told this is nothing to do with planning.  Doesn’t like the design.  All in all, there isn’t a lot going for this proposal, and sees no reason to go against the officer recommendation.

GB:  feels the LW’s comment was most pertinent – this is a contrived scheme, and unacceptable.

SW:  is on the right of way team - this is not a conflicting interest although if the application was to be permitted, could be looking at this at a future stage.  When first saw the application, including the building over a public right of way, wondered why it was even brought to committee.  If the footpath can’t be moved, the scheme can’t go ahead.  Is also with officers on this.  Is not an enormous fan of backland development at the best of times, but contrived is certainly the right word here.  The proposal is trying to fit a quart into a pint pot and just doesn’t work.  Fully supports the officers.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

13 in support

1 in objection

REFUSE