Agenda item

Officer introduction

VH introduced the application to build a single detached dwelling in the garden of an existing house, following demolition of the garage.  The site is in the greenbelt, on the north of Swindon Lane (the south side is not).  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Fisher.  The  new dwelling is part 2-storey, part 3-storey, and will have three bedrooms, with white render and  fibre cement slates.  The key considerations are set out in the officer report – impact on the greenbelt, design, impact on neighbouring amenity – and the recommendation is to refuse. 

Public Speaking

Russell Ranford, agent, in support

The application presented tonight is resubmission following withdrawal of a previous scheme, which was considered inappropriate in design and scale, making it overbearing.  The applicants are the two daughters of owners of the house, who have gifted them the land to help them onto the first step of the housing ladder.  The proposal respects the architectural style of adjacent properties, is subservient, utilises levels, with a lower ground floor below the existing garden, and the first floor equivalent to an extension over the existing garage. As the applicants already live at the address, there will be no extra vehicles accessing the site.  There will be 3.5m between the new house and neighbouring Wayside, which exceeds the gaps between the majority of properties on the northern side of Swindon Lane. The comments about reduction in light to the neighbouring property are misleading.  The application site may be in the greenbelt, but it is an urban area, surrounded on all sides by residential properties – the intention of greenbelt designation was not to protect this type of site.  It will not cause neighbouring towns to meet, not be overriding the special character, or harming any historic setting. It is an infill application in an acceptable location, in line with Policy GE1 of the Local Plan.  As discussed with the previous applications tonight, there is no five-year land supply, and cannot see that the harm of this proposal would outweigh the benefits in this sustainable location.  Requests that Members give it their approval.

Member debate

BF:  has been told that the proposal fails the light test, but what is there now – taking into account tall shrubs on the Wayside side, taller than the eaves, and the fence - already affects the light to the bedroom. 

SW:  agrees with BF.  The proposed dwelling is single storey at the back, dropping down, and only a little taller than the current decking, and lower than the threshold of the building next door, so cannot see there will be any greater impact.  The two-storey part at the front will be taller but also a lot narrower.  Regarding the design, it is in the greenbelt, but the agent made every argument – there is building all around and the whole principle of the greenbelt is lost on this development.  Is struggling to think of a reasonable reason to refuse.  Initially thought no, but now thinks the proposal is suitable.

JP:  is at odds with the two previous speakers.  The rationale behind the proposal is totally irrelevant and of no significance  Fully supports the views of the officer in an attempt to protect the greenbelt.  Housing in the  area is close together, and any interruption will have an adverse effect on the greenbelt.   This house doesn’t add anything to the street scene; it is attractively designed but in the wrong place, and contravenes greenbelt regulations.  Cannot support it. 

PB:  agrees with JP.  The officers are spot on.  On site, it is seen from a different perspective; the street scene works now, with views through.  This  design is appalling.  Supports the recommendation to refuse.

MC:  notwithstanding anything said yet, this is another inter-family development – for whatever reason, young people can’t afford to buy a new homes and parents are helping out – but is thinking if this wasn’t the case, would it pass the necessary tests?  It is incredibly close to the neighbouring properties, and wouldn’t want to live next door to it.  Agrees with the officer, who makes a strong and robust case.  Is leaning towards supporting that.

VH, in response: 

-       to BF, the existing garage doesn’t fail 25 degree light test at the moment, the proposed new dwelling will fail it;

-       doesn’t know who owns the fence – presumably the owner;

-       this is a proposal for an independent dwelling, not at annexe. 

KS:  is torn about this.  As discussed in the earlier application, proposals shouldn’t be designed around cars, and re-purposing a garage as a home for young people is good.  Could a condition be attached to ensure that it remains ancillary?  There is always demand for houses with annexes – people are living longer, require flexible living space etc, and we should be providing for that.  Is conflicted because of the greenbelt location, but there is already a garage there.  Is more minded to permit, but the new dwelling must be ancillary by condition.

BF:  failing the light test alone is not a refusal ground.  It is difficult for the lay person to understand the implications, but policy says it has to be a significant loss of light -  between 40% and 60% - yet the officer is talking about 25%.  This is confusing.  There has been mention of render, but looking at the north side of Swindon Lane, there is a fantastic variation of properties within metres of this: a mobile home park behind the hedge, smooth render, rough render, red brick – a real good mix of property, with no two the same.  That is the grain of the area, and the other side of road is outside the greenbelt.  From the street, there is little to be seen or lost from permitting this.  It is below the roofline of the two properties, there is a gap between both on either side, similar to all down road – it is not going against the grain of the road.

DB:  is concerned for the neighbours.  Understands that the lower ground floor is a separate flat -  would the loss of light and overbearing impact matter as much if it  wasn’t divided into flats.?

VH, in response: 

-       the light test is difficult to explain verbally -  wouldn’t be able to do it without the plan;

-       the 25% is the position of window in relation to the proposed dwelling, and this is what triggers it.

BF:  if Members are prepared to permit the proposal, they could add a condition for the side window on the new dwelling to be opaque glass.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

10 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE