Agenda item

Councillor Garnham left the meeting before the start of this debate.

MJC confirmed that this is an application for a new dwelling adjacent to 12 Acacia Close, and is at planning committee as a result of the parish council objection.  Members visited the site, and the officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr P Townsend, applicant, in support

Told Members that he has tried to go about things in a professional manner from the start of the project, and listened to all advice given to ensure that everyone is happy.  If the application is permitted, all works will be carried out as sympathetically as possible to all concerned.

Member debate:

MS:  noted that a previous application in 2012 had been withdrawn, and asked why this was.  Thinks it looks very similar to the current application, and if it was withdrawn because the recommendation was to refuse, wonders what has changed now.

MJC, in response:

-          has revisited the history of this application, and notes that the previous scheme was for a larger property, and was withdrawn because it was to be recommended for refusal as too large and having too great an impact on the neighbours at Lime Close.  The current proposal is smaller, hence the different recommendation;

-          Members did not visit the site at the time of the previous application as the application was withdrawn before planning view took place;

-          now, with a smaller footprint and reduced height, officers have come to a different conclusion and their recommendation is to permit.

PT:  asked how Members can possibly approve something so undersized which doesn’t meet the space standards governed by the Housing Act 2004.  The room size is not suitable and should be corrected by officers.

GB:  has to say from looking at the plan that this appears a very cramped site, and the proposal looks more like a double garage extension than a house.  Stumbled through the site on planning view and considers there not to be a large amount of space to build a new property in the context of other buildings.  It does not fit in and is inappropriate - can’t think of any planning reasons to refuse, other than safe and sustainable living, but is not comfortable with the proposal as it stands. 

PJ:  asked the officers for clarity – the parish council states that there is no parking provision but the highways officer refers to two parking spaces – which is correct?

LG:  notes that this proposal is smaller than the previous one, and that the applicants have deliberately chosen this particular position in the site rather than further back towards Lime Close.  Has looked very carefully and, taking into account other permissions in the Prestbury area, can see no reason why a planning inspector would turn this down at appeal.  The distances are there and there are no highways reasons to refuse – the authority would be very vulnerable if this application is refused and goes to appeal.  Raised his eyebrows at PT’s comment about room size – this is taken care of by building control, and he would not put his hand up for something he knows doesn’t meet standards.

BD:  was not concerned with the threat that if the proposal is refused it will go to appeal and the appeal may be lost.  On planning view, noted how tiny and close to other houses this is – it is an over-development of the site, just to make money.  Will vote against it for the people she represents, regardless of whether it goes to appeal or not – Members should say no to this nonsense.

CH:  looking at the picture, the proposal does seem to be crammed into a tiny space, but looking at the surroundings, it fits – there are a lot of tiny houses in tiny gardens.  Cannot see what is wrong with it.  Notes that television programmes such as Grand Designs are all about people putting houses into small spaces – this works, and goes with the grain of the development.

MJC, in response:

-          what Members are discussing is at the heart of the Garden Land SPD – context.  In the immediate context of this proposal, there is a huge variation of plots, sizes, gardens, and this is essentially what lies behind the recommendation to permit.  The proposal will sit quite comfortably in the site and not compromise the amenity of neighbours;

-          to PT, regarding housing space standards, said the plan is for a three-bedroomed property, but there is more than enough space in the property to re-design a two-bedroomed house should HMO have any objections.  Officers are comfortable with the footprint of the house, and HMO comments about room size are more significant when they refer to one-bedroomed flats with no room for manoeuvre – here there is space to play around with, and Members do not need to be concerned;

-          regarding parking provision, confirmed that there are two spaces – the property caters for itself.

SW:   if the bedrooms are not fit for purpose, do Members need to say so, or is it enough that they are happy with the footprint?  Agrees that the proposal doesn’t look good on paper, but on site visit it is clear that it works well and fits in with the rest of the estate.  Can the applicants be asked to redesign the upstairs?

MJC, in response:

-          there isn’t much Planning Committee can do about this.  The HMO response is included in the report, and the undersized rooms may be subject to enforcement, but Members are being asked to give permission for a detached dwelling.  If it is built as shown, the size of the rooms upstairs may be a risk for the applicant, but he is listening and presumably taking all comments on board.  He may choose not to comply with space standards, but this is not a planning reason to refuse the proposal.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

2 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT