Agenda item

Planning Application Documents:

Officer introduction

MP introduced the application relating to a site on King Alfred Way, close to Hales Road junction, which until recently accommodated 14 lock-up garages. In 2018, permission was granted for the redevelopment of the site, to provide four 2-bed dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping.  This has been implemented and construction is under way.  In February this year, an application for a revised  scheme was submitted to provide an extra floor of accommodation on Plots 3 and 4 to the rear of the site; permission has been implemented, and provides both dwellings with an additional bedroom and en-suite.  The current application is similar, seeking planning permission for a second floor to Plots 1 and 2 at the front of the site.  This is the only consideration in this application, and members should be looking at acceptability regarding design.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Babbage due to local residents’ concerns.  Officers are content that it will result in no loss amenity, and the recommendation is to permit, with conditions.

Public speaking

Neighbour, in objection

The JCS states that the need to integrate new development well with the existing communities, have regard for the character of the area, and cause no unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.  The objections to the addition of another floor to these dwellings show that this proposal fails to comply with the JCS.  The building would loom over and dominate existing homes and gardens; its overbearing height  will be oppressive, and it is wrong to say these are not considerations when there is no slide-rule for judging these matters.  In addition, the properties stand up a  slope from the existing houses, making the additional floor, in effect, at least 3.5 storeys high.  The dark render not in place when committee members visited the site – is oppressive.  Neighbours have valid concerns about loss of light, although this issue is dismissed by the council.

The visual connect of outdoor and indoor space is a basic principle of good architecture and mental health. To approve plans which block connection to the sky from people’s own rear ground floor windows is offensive and an amenity issue. There is a material difference between the former and the current proposals – the gardens are shorter gardens with no natural screening or mature trees.  Loss of privacy will be an issue for many residents, and to say this is addressed by frosted glass or a 3-metre tree is derisory. The recommendation cites the council’s own regulations for residential alterations as a relevant policy – interestingly these state that the alterations to residential property should be no higher than the original.  It also ignores increased pressure of parking and highways safety.

The report notes that the similar proposal has progressed without great objection, but only one week was allowed for neighbour consultation on this significant change, and many neighbours were not included – this is the subject of a separate formal complaint, which is not relevant here, but neighbour experience and objections to the altered Plots 3 and 4 are highly relevant.

Hopes that members will view the matter with judgement and common sense.

Member debate

LS:  the speech by the neighbour raises the question of a reverse salami-slicing approach to planning applications – developers get permission for one thing, wait until the new build property is being underway, then subsequently apply for an additional floor to the building.  This approach is somewhat out of the spirit of the planning process, allowing a development to take in several different iterations.  Is uncomfortable with this, and would welcome clarification.

DO, in response: 

-          it is fairly normal for applicants to make applications in stages – as market conditions change,  or they maybe take marketing advice which results in changes to a scheme.  This is not out of the ordinary, and there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it.

LS: turning to more general comments, agrees with the speaker, having visited the site; height of three storey as existing  overbearing, out of keeping, out of character with area.  Amenity value – overlooking – entirely legit and well founded.

DB:  can officers provide clarity regarding privacy and overlooking.  Notes that access to the roof area is restricted, and obscure-glazed windows which only open a certain amount are conditioned, but one resident letter says there will still be overlooking in spite of these measures.  Is this the case?

PM:  has some questions in light of comments by speaker:   paragraph 6.2 on page 74 of the agenda states that ‘the proposed second floor would be identical to that recently approved on plots 3 and 4, and therefore must be deemed acceptable’.  Was not aware that the previous application is the subject of a complaint.  Is the statement in the report correct, that this proposal must be deemed acceptable because the previous one has been approved?  Where is the complaint.  Is it relevant in the determination tonight?

BF:  understands what the officer has said – has visited this site a lot over the years, and on the last visit, the development seemed reasonable so far. However, this is a piecemeal application, and with the proposal to add a third storey at the front, it’s time to say enough is enough.  What the officer said is relevant but we approved what we thought would be built.  If the original proposal had been for three storeys, permission may not have been granted.

MP, in response: 

-          to DB, regarding overlooking – officers are satisfied there will be no overlooking from the additional floor.  Obscure glazing is required by condition, and the windows at the front are well in excess of the 10.5m to the boundary that officers normally look for;

-          to PM, the complaint has just been received, and talks about consultation on the previous application and description not being clear enough, but this shouldn’t have any impact on the decision on this application;

-          to LS, regarding the overbearing height and loss of amenity – Hales Road houses have long gardens, and there will be some loss of view of sky and tree but loss of distant view is not reason to refuse.   Officers don’t feel the new dwellings will be overbearing.

JP:  on planning view, saw Plots 1 and 2, and was pleasantly surprised – they are attractive buildings, brick built to a good standard.  Then moved round to view the site from a garden in Hales Road and saw the extension on Plots 3 and 4, which are now rendered in a darker shade – even when lighter thought them brutal, and out of keeping with first two.  The benefit of seeing what we are considering already built doesn’t normally happen, but having seen it on planning view, it is difficult to support the proposal for Plots 3 and 4 – it will be out of keeping, brutal, and overshadow gardens in Hales Road.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

5 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT