Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Officer introduction

MP introduced the application, sited on the south side of Hatherley Lane, within the PUA.  The proposal is an extension and sub-division of 18 and 20 Hatherley Lane, to create four dwellings, each with two car-parking spaces.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Britter, due to concerns from local residents.  The recommendation is to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the update report. 

Public Speaking

Rosemary Dillworth, on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Residents acknowledge that many of their concerns have been addressed, following the third revision of the plan and the officer’s report.  However, some objections remain.  First, residents dispute that the unauthorised use of the property has been going on for over 10 years.  The current low budget hotel came into use about three years ago, and prior to this, was advertised as a lodging house, with long-term residents owning few cars.  The planning application shouldn’t condone or enable continuation of unauthorised use. 

Second, the new fourth dwelling includes a two-storey extension only 4m from the boundary of 14 Faringdon Road; 7m seems to be the distance supported by other councils, to avoid overbearing.  The outdoor space for the new property is insufficient and would lack privacy, being overlooked by at least four properties, and will exacerbate an already over-developed site only ever intended for two properties, and create an unwelcome terrace effect out of character with the area.  The additional dwelling will increase the number of vehicles reversing onto the busy road near a blind bend, with bus routes and heavily-used pedestrian access to two local primary schools.  A similar proposal was refused on 2000 on all these grounds and the issues are still valid today, with no change other than higher volume of traffic.

Third, if the application is approved, which neighbours strongly oppose, there must be a condition stating that before the first occupation of any of the dwellings, the existing use should cease in its entirety.  This would avoid approving uses that may lead to claims of statutory nuisance if the existing use continues in part, and to protect future residents of the dwellings. 

Councillor Britter, in objection

Residents who live adjacent to the  site have given factual and personal reasons why the application should  not be permitted.  Some more elderly residents have asked for their concerns to be made known.  There is widespread concern that the answers given in the application form are not correct, particularly its description as two semi-detached houses – it has been a lodging house or hotel for many years and should be treated as such.  A previous application in 2000 was  refused on the grounds of over-development, lack of  amenity space, and not being in the interest of highways safety.  Local residents are asking what has changed.  New proposal does nothing to address concerns raised by the original refusal. 

The proposed two-storey extension by its size and position represents an unneighbourly form of development and will harm the amenity of neighbours, particularly in Faringdon Road.   It will be overbearing.   This is an established neighbourhood, where gardens are important in promoting the health and well-being of the residents, but this proposal will harm that amenity, and aggravate an already overdeveloped site,  designed for two dwellings, not four.  The proposal doesn’t respect local context or street scene, creating a big, unwelcome terrace effect, out of character with the neighbourhood.  Planning policy states that good design should contribute positively in making an area better for people, and  should improve the character and quality of area; if it fails to do this, it shouldn’t be accepted.

Local Plan Policy CP4 requires new development to avoid causing unacceptable harm to amenity of adjacent  land users and  locality.   This application is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF – it does not contribute positively to making the area better for people; in fact it adds to the strain on transport infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, and the health of residents through noise intrusion etc.  There are concerns about car parking – cars should not project or interfere with use of the road or pavement , and vehicles parked on or straddling the pavement will cause dangerous obstruction, inhibiting the  independence of many vulnerable local people and children on their way to and from school. Vehicle access and egress close to a blind bend will increase the potential hazards on this busy road.

Although the site is not in a recognised flood risk area, residents confirm that surface flooding occurs in heavy rain.  National and local planning policy  require that any improvements do not to increase risk of flooding against this, and state the need to incorporate substantial and sustainable drainage systems.

The owners of the property have not engaged with the community, and while residents acknowledge that  some of their concerns have been addressed in the third revision of the plan,  the proposal will still have a profound, detrimental and devastating effect.  There are also concerns about increasing the number of letting rooms available to the  hotel – which is why the additional condition has been suggested to help overcome this fear.

In conclusion, a similar application was refused in 2000, and all the refusal reasons are still relevant.  The proposal fails to meet JCS polices SD4 and SD14, Local Plan policies CP4 and  CP7, and paragraphs 12 , 127 and 130 of the NPPF.  The local community has spoken; they should be listened to, and the application should be refused.

Member debate

MC: it is nice to hear objectors making well-reasoned objections.  The description of the site is that it is currently three dwellings and a fourth is being proposed; there could be an argument that this is over-development of site.  Is surprised by the highways report – a previous application on this site was refused on highways grounds.   Nothing has changed and, if anything, the traffic situation has got worse over the years, so why have no objections been raised by County Highways? Is appalled by the land drainage report within the officer report.  This road floods on a regular basis, and cars often have to be driven through the flooded road.  This is not mentioned, and Nos. 23, 25 and 27, 29, 31 Hatherley Lane are substantially lower than the road, often ending up with water in their front gardens; nothing is brought up about this, yet the application could exacerbate the situation and it should be looked at carefully.  Has seen the effects of water here – some residents have created their own flood defence systems – and it would be irresponsible to allow an application to go ahead in the area which may make it worse.

Regarding the time the building has been used as hotel, the report says 10 years but residents say it is a lot less.  How long  is the owner allowed to illegally breach the use of building until it becomes immune from enforcement action? If the public  is to have faith in planning system, they need to see people brought to book for breaches of planning system.  Has anything been done in the past?  What would we do in future to stop it having a detrimental effect on the property?  Is this application a way to increase the number of rooms for short-term lets?  The objector talked about a condition if permission is granted, requiring the existing unauthorised use to cease in its entirety.  As things are, is not happy, and would like to refuse the application on the grounds of over-development – four properties on a plot intended for two – creating a terrace effect, exacerbating existing flood issues, and also on highways ground – though knows we have to be careful here.

RW:  on planning view, thought this looked OK, but it is actually not.  One of concerns raised by residents is the proposal’s overbearing effect and overlooking for No 14.  Actually, and with due respect to residents, this  isn’t where focus should be – the new dwelling is still quite a long way from the neighbour, and the facing wall is blank with no window.  Looking at this as the main objection misses the bigger picture – that the site is now heading for over development – four dwellings on a site intended for two.   The second issue is that  it will alter the street scene, creating the only terrace in the area.  Highway safety is dealt with too lightly – this is a busy, narrow piece of road, with a bridge close by; also pedestrian safety has to be considered.  The car parking spaces provided are tight, and a long vehicle,  or badly parked one, will create an obstruction for pedestrians.  It is a narrow pavement as is, for parents struggling along both sides of street with small children and push chairs; there are a lot of children in the area, who walk past on their way to the schools in the area.

Has real concerns about highway safety and parking, over development and the poor street scene.  Understands the multiple occupancy situation and that on the face of it this will get better if houses are created, but if the owners continue to use the houses as HMOs, they can put in a large number of people without planning permission.  The main issues are over- development,  poor streetscene, significant  highways and parking issues, and obstruction of the pavement and carriageway.

BF:  has a question for officers:  was told on planning view that the number of bedrooms will be reduced from what is existing – which would mean a reduction in the number of people living there now if it was to be fully let in the future.   A lot has been said about over- development,  but the NPPF mentions nothing about over-development and there is no rule.   Is concerned that the existing situation isn’t good, but this application gets rid of it and turns the properties back to houses, as originally intended.  They will be separate houses, hopefully occupied by families and adding  to the housing stock, and are therefore an improvement.  Regarding overlooking, the one window at the back has opaque glass, and there are no windows in the side wall.  There could be a reduction in the number of cars, in reducing the number of bedrooms from 14 to 10.  Is not qualified to speak on flooding and highways issues, but feels that overall this will improve the situation, and put the site back to where it was.  Also asked the officer on planning view about the issue of AirBnB, but was told there are no regulations of government control to stop this.  This property is currently a mess, and the proposal will put back good and substantial family homes for people who need them.  Will vote in support.

MP, in response:

-          regarding flooding, advice from the land drainage officer is included  in the report. The footprint of the dwelling is not altered in any way – the only extension is above the garage – so there should be  no impact on surface water flooding.  The scheme will introduce soft landscaping and residential gardens which will be a betterment regarding surface water, and cause no additional flood risk;

-          the existing use is to some extent irrelevant.  The authorised use is as two semi-detached dwellings.  A use needs  to be in existence for more than 10 years to be immune from enforcement action. The enforcement officer was aware of the issue, sent a planning contravention notice to the applicant, met with him, and was provided with sufficient evidence to reach decision that the existing use was immune from enforcement action.  That is view of enforcement officer, but largely irrelevant to what Members are considering today;

-          the residents’ suggested condition cannot reasonably be attached , as the application is seeking permission for straightforward C3 residential use; if it is approved and the existing use continues within the building as extended, enforcement action can be taken;

-          on the question of over-development, the application amounts to just an extension above the existing garage – a common extension on a chalet-style dwelling, with many examples around the town.   On the other side, a similar extension got permission – officers don’t feel over-development;

-          to BF, there are 17 letting  rooms at the moment; the proposed use would result in fewer bedrooms;

-          regarding AirBnB, this can be carried out anywhere; there are no restrictions.

CM, in response:

-          can see why Members find it tricky to comprehend the different highways position in 2000 and 2019.  It is a fair question, and the answer is the NPPF.  This changes the way officers administer discretion – what is proposed must be significantly worse in capacity terms or have an unacceptable impact on highway safety to warrant a refusal.  In balance, in this case, we have 13 vehicles currently doing the same as this application proposes eight will do, going forward – so there will be a reduction of the current impact.  There is nothing on record that the current behaviour at this site is unacceptable.  Any new planning permission will need to be formalised with modern technical standards, and  the access will still be subject to more technical approval from GCC if planning permission is granted, for drop kerbs etc.   It is all a case of balance against NPPF since 2012; in 2000, officers could say ‘that looks dangerous, let’s say no’ but planning has moved forwards, and how highways officers make recommendations has changed.

JP:  is at a loss to understand why proposed development of this site could be seen to exacerbate flooding issues; would think the opposite  is the case, with the introduction of soft landscaping.  Doesn’t see how it will detract from the streetscene – if anything, it will improve it - and the footprint will remain the same.  On planning view,  saw  two properties in desperate need of renovation – as they currently are cannot be for betterment of the area.  Hopes that the developers will develop the site with a view to rent or sell; it will have to be more attractive than what is currently there, and to advantage of local area.

RW:  challenges assumptions upon which CM has reached his conclusions.  The logic is flawless and in line with the NPPF, based on less vehicle usage in future, but there will be more cars on site – passes every day and rarely sees more than 2-3 vehicles on the forecourt, and although the current forecourt is not elegant, it allows driving on and off.  With eight car-parking spaces, using good practice people will have to reverse onto the forecourt in order to drive off forwards; the other way round will be worse.  There will be a lot more vehicular traffic on and off, as there is so little now by nature of the current occupancy.

CM, in response: 

-          regarding HMOs, has discussed the levels of car ownership previously,  the different work patterns with more comings and goings at different times of day from a traditional family,  higher number of vans etc.  We cannot say residential properties won’t have vans, but this is a residential application and it provides residential-style  parking – instead of expansive frontage to be parked on as one might see fit, with no specific design, this is clearly eight well-articulated spaces for the proposed houses, two per dwelling.  Last month, with the Monkscroft application, there were no concerns about this level of parking provision.  This is a repetition of same highways principles;

-          regarding road safety, one accident has been recorded in the area in the last five years ago – a shunt – but none on Hatherley Lane, despite all the properties with a similar style of access arrangement to  what is proposed here.

SW:  as an observation,  would like to see this returned to a pair of semis and not what is in front of us, though many of the objections from residents have been caused by historic problems, which should now be eased.  On the question of the suggested condition to stop the dwellings being used as they currently are before starting work, the officer has  said that this is what will happen, in effect – if permission is granted,  it will be back to square one –the current use would be unlawful and subject to enforcement action.  Regarding parking , agrees with RW’s view of usage – has walked past many times and not seen many vehicles, but has had complaints that the green land at the end is used for parking vehicles , and been asked to use his local money to get bollards put up – which suggests that that piece of land being used because residents can’t park currently. Four dwellings with two car-parking spaces per dwellings is OK – better than the old requirement of  PPG17 for 1.5 space  per unit.  This is two spaces per dwelling, so marginally better.  Doesn’t like the proposal, and agrees with the neighbours’ concerns,   but we should consider it a lot better than what  is currently there. 

SC:  doesn’t particularly like this proposal – it is over-development , making two three-bed houses into four dwellings – with 10 bedrooms upstairs and potentially another  five downstairs which could be used for bedrooms.    The officer has said if  the owners use it for AirBnB,  we can’t do anything about it – and there will be 15 bedrooms altogether.  Notes that 18A also has no bathroom upstairs.  Regarding notes that on 22.10, highways officers recommended the application be refused on highways grounds, and on the same date, after additional comments, recommended no objection be raised.  It seems odd to include both with the same date.

CM, in response: 

-          the original layout plan had two clusters of four perpendicular  parking spaces, with cars parked parallel to road – they would have had to come in tight, manoeuvre in and turn, and officers’ principle concern was the safety of other road users and pedestrians.   Not enough space was provided, the arrangement was  too complicated and frustrating, and would lead to conflict. Officers suggested an alternative layout for parking, but issued the  refusal to show they were serious about not liking the first layout, and adopting the refusal position to make the applicants seek a change.  This change position was accepted

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

PERMIT