Agenda item

The Chair moved consideration of 15/01405/FUL 2 Highland Road up the agenda, as the only two public speakers present were registered to speak on that application only.

EB introduced the application as above, which is at Committee for two reasons:  (1) at the request of Councillor Sudbury, and (2) because a previous application for a house on the same site was refused by Planning Committee in March.  The recommendation is to approve, with conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Wendy Hopkins, agent on behalf of neighbours, in objection

This proposal is for an additional dwelling within the current side garden of No. 2 Highland Road.  A similar scheme was refused by Planning Committee in March, due to concerns relating to the architectural design and poor siting of the proposal, which Members felt would be harmful on the street scene.  The house is prominently located, on an elevated plot adjacent to a junction.  The character of the area is a leafy, residential suburb, with largely detached houses in good-sized plots with gaps in between.  This infill proposal will destroy the pattern of the built form in the locality.  At the last meeting, Members took great care in considering the scheme, which must be looked at in the context of the Local Plan, the emerging Local Plan and the Garden Land and Infill SPG.  Policy promotes high standards of architecture and urban design, and this is what proposals should respond to, not fill in every gap with a new dwelling.  The architectural design of this proposal is more pleasing than the previous, but it is shoe-horned into a gap which is important for the local character of the area.  The size of the proposed dwelling has increased, and with the harm to the area, and its siting would be overbearing and oppressive to the residents of 62 Sandy Lane.  The NPPF requires development to improve the character and quality of the area, and any proposal should support the high quality design requirements of local and national policy.  This does not, and it should be refused.

Mr Russell Ranford, agent on behalf of applicant, in support

Following the previous refusal by Planning Committee,  it was difficult to take a clear steer about which way to go with this proposal.  Prior to submission, a number of designs were discussed with officers, and that was the one they felt most appropriate.  At Committee, the principle of development on this site was accepted by most Members; it was the design they didn’t like.  Design is always subjective, but the applicant has worked with planning officers to address Members’ concerns. As it was not clear exactly what was wanted, an appeal against the previous refusal has been lodged, but this will be withdrawn if the current application is permitted tonight.  The objectors have deliberately tried to mislead Members regarding the size and impact of the proposed dwelling; a contextual analysis was carried out, demonstrating the plot area to building width ratio of houses in the area, and that analysis doesn’t lie.  The previous speaker made unfounded statements in the objectors’ interest.  It has also been stated that the proposal is too small for its context, but the Architects’ Panel now supports it, it is in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan, represents sustainable development and will cause no harm to the area.  For these reasons, it should be supported, and requests that Members endorse the officer’s recommendation to permit.

Member debate:

PB:  this application is a good example of planning in action; the previous scheme was refused on design grounds, but this new application is better, more fit for purpose, and in keeping with the street scene.  Does not consider the proposed dwelling is shoe-horned in, but that it fits in well.  The borough needs housing, and it’s inevitable that plots of this size will be built on.  It isn’t a particularly precious plot, and it’s important that land such as this is used properly.  Supports the revised application.

BF:  the second speaker talked about the size of the plot and how the proposed dwelling fits in with the surrounding area, but the OS map shows the surrounding houses smaller in relation to their plot size than the proposed dwelling will be.  In addition, 90% of the houses are open to the front. This proposal doesn’t fit the street scene; it is a small plot.  The design has been altered but isn’t of particularly high standard.  Agrees that this is a matter of opinion, but it’s wrong to say that the proposed dwelling fits comfortably in with the rest of the street.

JP:  is in favour of this application.  To clarify, the plot is small but not the smallest on the street – there are two smaller, and the ratio of the plot size to the dwelling is better than quite a few on the street.  Accepts that the street is very smart and respectable, and that the proposed dwelling will be the smallest on that road, but it will have very little impact, and is set back from the road.  The design is very ordinary, but better than the previous design.  It is a sensible proposal, doesn’t create any tension between the proposed dwelling and other houses around it, which are large and respectable but otherwise quite ordinary.  It sits back from the road, and the impact will be minimal.

KS:  is conflicted over this application.  Was opposed to the design of the previous scheme at the last meeting; this scheme is an improvement and will sit better in the site.  Still has concerns, but isn’t sure that these are strong enough to support a refusal.  It would be good to retain space between the two properties, allowing long views to the hill for everyone to enjoy.  The design is much improved – the previous design proposed too small a site, but is disappointed that the applicant has gone to appeal with the previous scheme, at the same time as making a new application.  Appreciates the neighbours’ concerns; this will change the street scene a lot, but maybe not enough for her to move to refuse it.

SW:  is in support of the recommendation, so not sure he should therefore be speaking, but would say that the architecture may not be a grand design, but not many of the houses in the area are.  On Planning View, thought the proposal almost identical to No 3, opposite. Regarding shoe-horning the new dwelling into this space, we are being asked to build a lot of houses; this is not a backland development, but fitting an additional property into the largest site in the area.  It is a credit to the architect, who has designed a property which fits well in the plot.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT