Agenda item

MJC introduced the application, which is at Committee due to a parish council objection as set out in the report.  Officer recommendation is to approve, and Members are reminded that they approved a similar application on an adjacent site a few months ago.

Public Speaking:

Mr David Jones, agent, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, and this application follows the committee’s approval of similar proposal at 17 Greenhills Road in October last year.  Officers concluded that that development complied with local and national planning policy, and nothing has changed since that permission was granted, making it a compelling recent precedent.  The scheme has been amended in line with the officer’s comments and those of the Architects’ Panel and is before Members with a clear and unequivocal officer recommendation to approve.  Regarding the neighbour objections:  the principle of development in rear gardens in this area has been clearly established with backland developments at Haymens Close, Charlton Gardens and 17 Greenhills Road; there is no common theme to existing development in the area, regarding styles and materials, so this proposal cannot be said to be out of keeping, backed up by Paragraph 60 of the NPPF; the proposal is not too large or high – in fact it is lower in height than the permitted scheme next door, and the floor area is comparable and urban grain consistent with developments already permitted in the area; regarding any impact on privacy, the scheme has been designed to ensure that no overlooking takes place, is 32m away from its nearest neighbour (the nationally recognised window-to-window separation is 21m), and properties backing on to the site have gardens over 50m long; and finally there have been no highways objections and the access has been designed to match that at 17 Greenhills Road.  In summary, the NPPF, Local Plan and Garden Land SPD do not seek to prevent appropriate development on garden sites, and the NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  This is sustainable development, and compliant with local and national planning policy.

Member debate:

PH:  is the local borough councillor and notes that there have been many comments from concerned local residents, all well-researched and including a wealth of detail to support their cases and urge us to consider them and the Development on Garden Land SPD.  Policy CP7(c) clearly states that any new building should complement local development.  At the previous meeting about the proposal next door, it was identified that since 2002 there has been a ribbon of development in this area, and the principle of building here has been established and may continue, which means that Policy CP7(c) is all that is left for neighbours to comment on.  The report states that a contemporary approach must be considered appropriate.  As the local councillor, is concerned about this, and would like to see the application refused.

MJC, in response:

-          the comment in the officer report has been taken out of context, although he understands Members’ frustration here.  We have already heard comments from the NPPF about not stifling innovation or imposing architectural styles; there are many different styles in Greenhills Road.  If the scale, massing and footprint are right, architecture is a secondary consideration – which is why the report states that this proposal is acceptable;

-          there is no defined architectural style in the area, and neither is it a conservation area, so the comment in the officer report is fair;

-          neighbours’ concerns have been considered and the scheme amended in response to them, so the consultation process was clearly worthwhile.

BF:  it’s a shame when siting and mass makes architecture irrelevant – that’s how we ended up with 60s tower blocks.

KS:  believes MJC’s comments hit the nail on the head – the concern is that these houses are being proposed in back gardens where one would expect there to be some subserviency – could they be tweaked a bit to allow this?  A holistic view of this area needs to be taken – maybe a masterplan, allowing no more than two properties per driveway?  Traffic speed and volume is a real problem to the local community.  This proposal is too big and dominant for a back garden development, and refusal reasons could be based around its scale, bulk and mass rather than its design.

GB:  is KS moving to refuse?

KS:  yes, though not sure whether CP4 or CP7 is a more appropriate refusal reason.

PH:  we should be able to use CP7 – the existing houses along the road are all traditional but the proposal is not, and therefore contravenes CP7.  If the application Members considered earlier was considered inappropriate in Cudnall Street, this is worse as it is much more out in the open.

MJC, in response:

-          needs a bit more assistance in forming refusal reasons. KS’s analysis is helpful but the substantive issue is the grain of the area.  There is helpful advice in the SPD regarding the hierarchy of an area – the existing dwelling achieves this, the proposed dwelling does not;

-          considers that refusal on CP7 Could be appropriate, though in this situation, it would not be entirely advisable to major focus on architecture due to the variety in the area;

-          between KS and PH, there is the makings of a refusal reason, although officer recommendation is to approve.

PH:  KS’s comment about the proposal needing to be subservient is very important – it is not subservient.

Vote taken on KS’s move to refuse on CP7 and the SPD

5 in support

4 in objection

4 abstentions

REFUSE