Agenda item

Officer introduction:

CS introduced this application for a separate dwelling to the rear of the existing bungalow, saying an earlier proposal for a bungalow on the same site was refused under delegated powers.  Officers consider the introduction of a bungalow here is harmful to the residential character of the area.  It is very similar to the previously refused scheme, the only amendments relating to a slight reduction of plot size and in ridge height, and a hipped roof instead of a gable.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillors Coleman and Holliday.  The recommendation is to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Mr Russell Ranford, agent for the applicant, in support

This applicant has made this application on behalf of her elderly mother, to help her live independently with her family on hand.  She has a degenerate bone condition which makes it difficult for her to climb stairs, but able to live in bungalow.  This is not a garden-grabbing exercise; it is a caring daughter trying to make life easier for her mother and planning for her own elder years.  The officer report confirms at 6.7 that the proposed structure is within the allowances of permitted development for an outbuilding, and the applicant is using this as a fall-back position, but her mother wants to live independently and she therefore felt it best to be upfront about her intentions.  In addition, she hopes to move into the bungalow herself in the future and to sell the existing house.  Martin Horwood, an opponent of garden-grabbing, supports the scheme, recognising that it fulfils a need.  What is more, it will provide a manageable garden to suit an elderly person.  Feels it remiss of officers to refer to previous appeals, one of which was for a larger, tandem dwelling in the Poets Conservation Area, and the other of which, after being dismissed in 2009, now has planning permission for five houses on the site. The proposed dwelling will have its own small garden.  Considers planning officers to be showing a lack of consistency in their decisions, and urges Members to take a common sense approach and overturn the officer recommendation.  

Member debate:

KS:  is happy with the officer report, and thinks the recommendation to refuse is right.  Would ask officers to expand on the issue of permitted development rights; if a planning application is refused, yet the same-sized building could be built under PD rights, how can a refusal be consistent with those rights?

BF:  read the refusal reasons and then visited the site.  Was surprised that the officer considered the proposal would ‘diminish the existing sense of spaciousness’ between the houses, as the main dwelling is linked corner premises,  and there would be a large gap between it and the proposed dwelling.  Was also surprised at the comment that the proposed bungalow would be at odds with the scale of immediately surrounding buildings as 50m away there are six bungalows in Oldfield Crescent.  Considers these are not good refusal reasons – they are difficult to substantiate and an Inspector would find them so.  There is only one letter of objection, and one of the reasons stated is that the neighbours may wish to build over their garage they would not be able to do so.  This is not a planning reason.  The proposal isn’t a tandem development; it has its own separate entrance.  Cannot see much wrong with it and would like to move to approve as the refusal reasons aren’t justifiable. 

SW:  is open-minded about this but struggling to support the officer recommendation following BF’s comments.  We moan about garden-grabbing, but this proposal fits well in the plot.  It is single-storey so cannot be over-bearing.  Will listen to the debate, but cannot really see why it shouldn’t be built and would generally be in favour.

PT:  officers say if someone wants to build a granny annexe, certain criteria need to apply.  What is the difference here?  Has concerns however – read the report and could see no reason why this shouldn’t be built, but on visiting the site, felt differently about it.  The drawings make it look very spacious, but in fact it is much more cramped in reality.

PB:  is pleased this is at Committee.  This could be a marginal case, where officers could have gone either way, but this is where the human side of planning should come in.  There is a compelling reason why this bungalow should be built.  It is single-storey, will provide for the needs of the owner, and is not a garden-grabbing exercise.  Would support BF’s move to permit.

CS, in response:

-       to KS, regarding PD rights, there are clear arguments in the two appeal decisions mentioned in the report which are relevant here.  Just because a structure falls under Permitted Development, this doesn’t necessarily make it not harmful. The Hillview Road case is relevant in considering the likelihood of permitted development for ancillary use later coming forward as a separate dwelling.  The Inspector questioned whether the applicants would build a structure of this size and type purely for ancillary use,  and didn’t therefore accept PD rights are never harmful;

-       officers have assessed this and feel that division of the site would be harmful; that is why the Inspector refused the appeal at Hillview Road.

-       to BF, the spaciousness referred to is between No. 11 and No. 15 Oldfield Crescent, to the rear of the site. No. 11 has a large garden and there is a perceived sense of space that would be diminished by the proposed dwelling.  The separation of the site and introduction of hardstanding would result in the established character of the area being diminished;

-       to PT, the criteria officers look at as to whether a unit is ancillary or not, if this proposal was to come in as PD application for a structure of this size, officers would have to be convinced that it could not be occupied independently, by looking at the facilities provided such as bathroom and kitchen. 

JP:  agrees with PB.  Looking at the drawings, this is very much about form and function.  This dwelling is proposed for a specific purpose.  Agrees that the style doesn’t blend in all that well with the surrounding houses but it is a small bungalow, not overpowering in this environment.  It will be used for supporting the applicant’s family, in keeping with care in the community objectives.  Will support the application.

KS:  feels we are on precarious ground here, if we allow it because the applicant says it is for her mother. Recalls an application in Mitre Street where a dwelling was created for an elderly mother but soon sold on.  It may be true in this case but is not necessarily how it will be occupied; it could be being built for profit.  We should ask ourselves whether this is the right development in this location; officers say it isn’t. If we allow it be built and other similar applications come forward, we won’t have a leg to stand on  to turn them down.   We have to be clear about how we make decisions.  The proposal should only be permitted if it isn’t harmful to the area. 

BF:  it’s clear that the reasons for accepting this proposal aren’t just based on immediate occupancy – planning permissions last for a hundred years.  Does not agree with the refusal reasons as given.  The gardens are not visible from the street and has a big hedge; the sense of spaciousness will be retained; the main dwelling is linked; there are other bungalows nearby so the proposal fits in with the street scene, and in any case, variety is the spice of life.  This proposal will do no harm.

JF:  is getting worried.  Members are here to consider arguments for and against applications on planning grounds.  Would like to be able to say this proposal is OK, bearing in mind the circumstances of the applicant, but we must stick to planning reasons when considering applications.  We need to stick to our guns – otherwise there will be consequences and we are straying onto dangerous ground.

GB:  agrees with JF.

PB:  notes that the applicant lives in the big house and effectively wants to build a bungalow in its garden – it could not be built without the big house.  Could a condition be added to prevent the bungalow from being sold separately – would that be appropriate?

GB:  from what the public speaker said, thinks the reverse situation is more likely to arise in the future – the applicant intends to sell the house and live in the bungalow herself at some stage.

CS, in response:

-       the SPD on garden land was agreed by Members to assess this form of application.  Officers feel there is a real distinct character in the area – semi-detached houses with a lot of space around them.  To allow any building to interrupt this would be contrary to that document.  Has noted the variety of house-styles in Oldfield Crescent, but these are not in the immediate environment of the application site.  This proposal will erode the character;

-       to PB, it would not be reasonable to attach such a condition; in effect, that would be refusing the application for an independent dwelling. 

SW:  is looking at the site on Google Earth as was unable to attend Planning View, and feels that either a granny annexe or a separate dwelling would fit very nicely into this plot.  If it was in his ward, developers would be wanting to build a block of flats on it!  One modest building fits well, whether it’s for a granny or not.

GB:  will take vote on officer recommendation to refuse; if this is lost, can then be a move to approve.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

8 in support

6 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE