Agenda item

Councillor Hall left the Chamber for this debate (see above)

WH described the application as above, with the officer recommendation to approve.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for an illustration of the existing house (displayed on wall).  Cannot support this proposal.  At the moment, it is an ‘old-fashioned’ house, in keeping with the street scene.  Taking off the roof and turning the house into a modern edifice is not appealing – cannot support it in any way, shape or form.  If it was a modern extension on the side or rear of the house, that might be OK, but taking the roof off will destroy the symmetry of the street.

KS:  agrees with PT, and considers this application a travesty.  This is a pretty house which fits in well with the street scene.  Does not consider this approach appropriate here – 1970s houses aren’t the most appealing, but this is pretty and in a prominent site.  Has nothing against modern architecture but considers it the wrong approach here.  A variety of architectural styles is good, and maybe a modern extension at the back of a property, but this proposal is not right in this location.  There is a modern extension next door, but it is only a single storey and not visible from the street.  The proposed scheme is very substantial, very noticeable, and will change the character of Sandy Lane.  Cannot support it.

PJ:  takes the opposite view and cannot refuse it.  The character of Sandy Lane has been changed by previous applications, and this proposal is like a mini-Grand Design.  The house is pretty, but it could be demolished and completely rebuilt.  There is enough space front and back for the proposed scheme.  Doesn’t usually like modern designs, but likes this one.

BD:  personally thinks the proposal looks horrible – but will support it anyway.  Asked for clarification of the picture, in which the house next door is not visible from the road.

HM:  like PJ, likes the application.  The existing house is very solid but tired, and would need considerable restoration.  The proposed scheme is exciting.  Sandy Lane has many different styles of architecture, and there are other modern houses further up the road.

GB:  on balance, will support the proposal but is concerned that on site, the 1.5-storey conservatory seemed to be very close to the neighbouring building on the right side - worried by this, but not enough to vote against it.  There will be an impact on No. 7 – is there anything to be done to ameliorate this?

RG:  this is a prominent site and the new building has to be right with materials and finish.  Thinking about some of the schemes Members saw on the completed schemes tour, and the Condition 4, requiring approval of facing and roofing materials, urges officers to make an example of this proposal in enforcing that condition, so that it doesn’t just look great on Day 1 but also five years down the line.  The conditions are there, and need to be enforced to make sure the scheme looks right and stays so, unlike some new-build properties in Pittville which are already beginning to look tatty.  Would like to see officers given the muscle to really enforce the conditions.

BD:  supports this – it is so important that the building doesn’t start looking tired and tatty.

WH, in response:

-          to comments about the character of the street scene and whether the proposal is in keeping with this, Sandy Lane is a residential street with very mixed architectural style.  There is a modern, flat-roofed dwelling next door to the application site.  Some people appreciate contemporary designs, and some don’t, but Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that planners should not attempt to impose architectural style or taste, or stifle innovation but should seek to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness.  Planners shouldn’t be ‘architectural police’ – there are always a number of approaches which will work;

-          regarding the 1.5-storey element and its proximity to No 7 Sandy Lane, a light test has been undertaken and passed, and adequate daylight to the adjoining property is not an issue;

-          regarding the prominence of the site, RG has picked up the matter of details, which is very important.  If Members want to condition any particular details to be produced at greater scale, or more detailed drawings of any particular element, this could be requested;

-          officers are in negotiation to promote and encourage more details to come forward as part of planning applications, a the devil is in the detail and they want to ensure that developments look good now and in five years’ time;

-          there is no specific condition for any particular detail at the moment, but Members can propose one if they like, or leave it to be agreed between officers and the Chair and Vice-Chair.

RG:  is particularly concerned about where the different surfaces meet and how this will weather.  Happy for this to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

4 in objection

0 abstentions

PERMIT