Agenda item

MP told Members this is a full application for a four-bedroomed house to the rear of 17 Greenhills Road, originally submitted as an outline application, but with additional information later submitted for consideration.  Access is via a new shared access at the eastern end of the site, and officer recommendation is to permit

Public Speaking:

Dr Jon Mutimer, neighbour, in objection

The proposed development is inappropriate for several reasons and contravenes policy.  Having read the paperwork, attended meetings and read objections from residents, does not consider this to be a sustainable application.  It is a tandem development, which is poor planning according to the SPD, and could set a precedent which would ruin the local character of the area.  It represents poor use of the limited land and amenity space, and developments such as this should make use of irregular-sized plots rather than single tandem development.  The proposed dwelling will not reflect the urban grain of Hayman Close and Charlton Close – Hayman Close is a larger development, but an additional dwelling in a single garden will not enhance the area and is grossly out of character.  Houses in Hayman Close have three bedrooms, but the proposal is for a four-bedroomed house, greater in height, scale and massing than the original house, against the principles of the SPD.  In addition, the orangery at 4 Hayman Close has not been taken into consideration when calculating minimum distance between the proposal and existing dwellings.  Parking provision is inappropriate, with the flat roofed garage setting an ugly precedent, and if more than two cars are parked on site, they may need to reverse up the drive onto Greenhills Road, which is a dangerous and busy road.  To conclude, this is a poor use of the plot and in contravention of local policy, and many other reasons to reject the scheme are outlined in letters from neighbours.

Mr David Jones, agent, in support

Notes the many objections to the scheme, and is surprised and depressed that the previous speaker owns and lives in one of the houses constructed some 6-7 years ago on garden land to the rear of Greenhills Road – if his objections were valid, he would not be living in a house in this location.  To be specific, 17 Greenhills Road is approximately a half-acre plot, and the garden remaining for the existing house will be a sizeable 25m x 17.5m, with the new property taking up just 18% of the plot.  Houses in Hayman Close take up 24-27% of the plot, and in Charlton Close 21-27%, excluding access – so the proposal represents lower density than comparable properties.  Hayman Close was built in the gardens of 18-20 Greenhills Road, and complements the area well.  The Local Plan SPG doesn’t set out to prevent development on garden land, if it is considered appropriate, and this proposal, in scale, mass, urban grain and landscaping meets with requirements.  It is a modern development, and has been designed to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties and of 17 Greenhills Road. 

Member debate:

BD:  regrets that she cannot vote against this, saying that Members created this situation by agreeing to the other development of garden land along Greenhills Road and not following through the preparation of development brief to avoid small-scale developments such as this.  They were warned about piecemeal backland development and this is now happening – Members should have had the courage of their convictions at the time, and hoped they would learn not to let the threat of appeal get in the way of this. 

RG:  recalls himself and Grahame Lewis trying to get a comprehensive development design brief for Greenhills Road, and also the assumption when Hayman Close was built that it would prevent any further development from No. 17 Greenhills Road downwards because there could be no access off Hayman Close.

PT:  also remembers discussion of a development brief for the area, but there was no NPPF then, and this now supersedes everything, unless we have an up-to-date local plan.  We have to toe the line as far as the NPPF is concerned.

JF:  for clarity, is it right to say that the SPD on garden grabbing is superseded by the NPPF?  If not, why is this proposal recommended for permission and why is the SPD not being used effectively?

MP, in response:

-          to RG, the suggestion that the Hayman Close development could prejudice future development is flawed, as we need to consider each site on its own merits.  This proposal didn’t come forward at the time, and Hayman Close is long complete.  To refuse, Member need to identify what harm the proposal will do;

-          to JF, the SPD is not superseded by the NPPF – this is set out in the report – but it should be remembered that the SPD does not set out to prevent development.  Page 36 advises against single development if this is harmful to the urban grain, but here, looking at the block plan, it is clear that the proposal sits comfortably in this setting.  In addition, there are no highways issues, and there is a need for housing in the borough.  We need to move forward and consider applications on their own merit.

PH:  looking at Para 6.1 of the report, would it be easier to refuse this application if Hayman Close and Charlton Close hadn’t been built?  If so, isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing?

MP, in response:

-          we need to take each application on its own merits.  It can be argued that the urban grain has changed since Hayman Close was built.  This application seeks to reflect that urban grain.

PH:  will it make it easier for subsequent developments along the road to get permission?

MP, in response:

-          the report sets out the fact that this is likely, but each application will be determined on its own merits.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

3 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT