Agenda item

17/00484/FUL 41 Asquith Road

Minutes:

 

 

Application Number:

17/00484/FUL

Location:

41 Asquith Road,

Proposal:

Alterations and extensions to provide first floor accommodation

View:

Yes

Officer Recommendation:

Permit

Committee Decision:

Permit

Letters of Rep:

14

Update Report:

None

 

MP introduced the application as above, for the addition of a first floor to an existing bungalow.  The proposal has been significantly revised during the course of the application to address officer concerns, resulting in a 376mm overall increase in ridge height, and reduction in size of the three dormers to the front.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury to allow Members to consider the impact on neighbouring properties and character of the area.  It was deferred from July’s meeting to allow for errors in the drawings to be corrected.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Dellar, neighbour, in objection

Together with his parents, planned the layout for two low bungalows on their land, back in 1974.  It is a quiet area, and they wanted to ensure that any further building would not encroach on the peace of the neighbourhood and be of a high standard.  Neighbours in Mead Road and CBC were consulted, and restrictions included in the deeds of Nos 39 and 41 to ensure no elevation changed.  Good planning requires that extensions are subservient, but this proposal is overbearing and not subservient.  Fourteen neighbours have objected, and converting and increasing the size of No 41 will have a very unpopular impact on nearby properties.  The revised plans have made no difference to neighbours’ opinions, one comment likening it to ‘a squash court on top of a building’; it will appear as a flat-roofed two-storey house.  The first floor plans for three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a boiler room will dominate; the height and design are imposing; the dormers do not ‘respect the character and scale of the existing building’.  Neighbours in Mead Road and Asquith Road have serious concerns about privacy from particular rooms and gardens, and the three front windows are now in visual alignment with his own first floor bedrooms.  Planning officers originally stated that it was appropriate for CBC to recommend that the alterations remain within the existing envelope of the property, and this is what the neighbours want to happen.  The new building materials will be unsightly, and construction vehicles will damage the private drive.  There is plenty of room, particularly on the south side of the site for a ground level extension – requests that this is explored. CBC has a duty of care to protect privacy and amenity for local residents, who do not wish to stand in the way of improvement but believe that what is proposed is more akin to a new build house.

 

Mr Flooks, applicant, in support

Councillor Sudbury requested that this application be brought to Committee to allow Members to consider the impact on the neighbours and the character of the area.  Objections from neighbours have raised seven concerns:  overdevelopment, changes out of character with the area, visual impact of changes, impact on privacy, impact on other properties’ daylight, noise and disturbance, and the existing restrictive covenant.   Has worked closely with the planning officer, bearing in mind the need to be respectful of the neighbourhood while meeting the needs of his growing family.  Have significantly reduced the overall scheme in respect of the first six of the neighbours’ concerns, and followed the officer recommendation on finishes.  The officer recommendation is that the proposal will cause no unacceptable harm to neighbours’ amenity in terms of outlook, privacy or daylight, particularly to the wider locality.  The main determining issues were the design of the property and the impact on neighbouring amenity.  On both these issues, the officers considers the revised application to be more respectful to the character of the existing property and its neighbour to the north, in accordance with polices CP4 and CP7 and the national planning policy framework.  The covenant, as the planning office states, is not a planning matter – hopes to discuss this with the beneficiaries of the covenant once they know the proposal is in line with contemporary planning direction. The planning officer has stated that it is, that there will be no unacceptable harm to neighbours, and therefore recommends approval.  Local planning policy states a positive and proactive approach should be adopted when dealing with planning applications, and solutions sought to deliver sustainable development.  With the significant revisions of this scheme, it now constitutes sustainable development, and hopes that Members will have no hesitation in approving the application.   

 

 

Member debate:

HM:  visited the site and was concerned that if the application goes ahead, the state of the unadopted roadway to the three houses could be damaged. If approved, can a condition be included that the road should be made good at the developer’s expense should any damage occur?

 

MP, in response:

-       We have considered situations like this before, with proposals on private roads.  Damage and repair to private roads is a civil matter, therefore HM’s suggested condition would not be reasonable.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support

1 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT

 

 

Supporting documents: