Agenda item

MJC introduced the proposal, an outline application with all matters reserved, other than access.  A similar application on this site was refused by committee some months ago; the main difference between that application and the current one is that the site is now larger.  It has been consulted on in the usual way, and the recommendation is to permit, subject to a condition to guide the applicant at the reserved matters stage.

Public Speaking:

None

Member debate:

MS:  disappointed that this application is back again so soon, and the fact that it is now on a larger bit of land does not make any material difference to the previous refusal reasons.  This is over-development, in conflict with the SPD which is very clear about backland development’s visual connection to the existing street.  Planning Committee did the right thing last time in refusing.  Policy CP7 is still applicable, residents of 83B New Barn Lane are concerned about the impact on their property, and the proposal is too crammed in – a quart in a pint pot.  Moves to refuse for same reasons as used last time.

RG:  supports this move.  A house has already been legitimately constructed in the garden of 81 New Barn Lane, and now the applicant is trying to squeeze in another, with the only difference between this and the previous application being a little rectangle of land behind 82B.  This is not enough to make any difference to the previous refusal reasons.  The new application includes a shed and hardstanding, but the effect on 83B will be the same.  The addition of the extra land does not win him over.  The applicant may have the right to reply, but this doesn’t mean the Committee has to agree.

HM:  doesn’t like outline applications.  The elevational drawings are very bland - the officer says these will not be binding, but is unhappy with them and would like to see something with more imagination.  The proposal still conflicts with policy CP7 and the SPD.  Agrees with MS’s move to refuse, but wonders why officers have changed their minds.

MJC, in response:

-          to HM’s question (and covering several other points at the same time):  officers haven’t actually changed their minds, as the recommendation for the previous application was also to permit.  The Committee gave its view very clearly, and officers are now defending their refusal reasons at appeal – statements of case have been submitted;

-          however, this application is materially different.  The additional land overcomes the previous refusal reason that the proposal was cramped and overcrowded – with more land, the applicant has freed up what can be done with the development.  The lay-out is only indicative, and the building could be moved to the south, in line with 82B, still leaving a reasonable amount of garden and space around, and not appear too cramped;

-          regarding the Garden Land SPD and policy CP7: officers always give the same answer to Members on the SPD – it gives key themes and proposals, but  officers and Members need to understand and consider the context before deciding if a proposal is acceptable.  From the site plan it is clear that this area comprises a variety of buildings, plot sizes and so on – the proposed dwelling would not be noticeable on this site plan.  Officers use Nolli diagrams as a good way to understand the grain of an area, showing dwellings and buildings as small black blobs, and demonstrating that the grain here is indeed very varied and could take another dwelling;

-          the flaws with the design and lay-out drawings have been acknowledged, but the applicant doesn’t have to submit elevational detail at this stage – the main consideration in the relationship to 83B.  There are ways to make the scheme meet requirements at the reserved matters stage;

-          officers consider the proposal to be compliant with CP7 and the SPD, hence their recommendation to permit.

MS:  MJC has spoken about the grain, but Members who don’t know the area should be aware that the regular black dots on the left side of the site plan are mobile homes.  Looking at these, it may appear that one extra dwelling doesn’t matter, but it does.

BD:  was not on planning view, unfortunately, but having looked at the drawings, asked where the extra land to the right is coming from?  If it’s from 83B, that property will be completely squashed.

MJC, in response:

-          the extra land is owned by the applicant.  The garden of 83B is shown on the drawing, and the additional land is taken from the garden of 81A.

Vote on MS’s move to refuse, on CP7 and the Garden Land SPD

11 in support

0 in objection

3 abstentions

REFUSE