Agenda item

EB introduced the proposal as above, for four dwellings . The original application was permitted in January 2015, with a revised scheme approved in May.  Houses 2, 3 and 4 are largely complete; this application is for four units, with Plot 1 enlarged.  The changes are detailed in the report.  The officer recommendation is to permit. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Richard Basnett, planning agent on behalf of neighbours, in objection

Is speaking on behalf of the residents of 46 Bafford Lane, situated to the north-west corner of the site.  Has followed the planning application from its conception; it has been complex.  The four houses are now near completion, and the scheme has been significantly amended in the current application.  The siting and proximity of Plot 2 adjacent to the boundary with No. 46 Bafford Lane will be overbearing  The owners of No. 46 welcomed and supported the original application, subject to the correct levels being used for the drawings, but the permission was granted with misstated levels, to the detriment of No. 46.  Plot 2 has been constructed with a large basement, contrary to the plans, as is the originally approved Plot 1 which is 56% larger than originally approved and  thus more harmful to No. 46.  The cumulative effect of all the adjustments are detrimental to No. 46.  If the height of the approved scheme could be reduced, this would be welcomed as it would be less overbearing.  Similarly, a condition relating to no additional windows and doors would also be welcome and the proposed condition for a wall along the boundary.  Currently there is a very large fence in place, urges this condition is enforced and not changed to a fence.

Mr Robert Deacon, applicant, in support

Plot 2 has been amended to lift the kitchen floor to allow disabled access, not to create a basement – although a basement has been created in the process as Barrington Lodge already had a basement.  This should have been at design stage, was rectified on site and amended plans approved. Of the seven properties affected by the development, 46 Bafford Lane is the least affected; measurements from the first floor are as follows:  15m to Brizen Cottage; 20m to 4 Bafford Lane; 22m to 6 Bafford Lane; 17.5m to 8 Bafford Lane; 15m to 4 Lawson Glade to the nearest corner; 21m to 46 Bafford Lane.  The windows on the back of Plot 1 look across the garden of No. 46 but not into it; the windows face the rear garden of No. 4 Lawson Glade but officers do not consider this to be unacceptable .  To confirm,  No. 46  is the property least affected by development.

Member debate:

PB:  this application has been discussed a few times before, and has been concerned about the number of changes submitted.  It is really difficult for local residents and lay people to understand what is going on with the proposal.  On Planning View, realised he would be very hard-pressed not to support the officer recommendation.  Takes the neighbour’s concerns on board, but does not consider these significant enough to refuse the proposal.  Would question the officer on the comment regarding the boundary wall – it was more effective and aesthetically pleasing, and should be retained.   It is a good scheme; likes the contemporary style and design, and appreciates that the developer could have built more houses on the site.  Agrees that there have been too many changes along the way, but will support the scheme as it now is.

HM:  finds the report difficult to follow, as a number of statutory consultees talk about five dwellings – the original application – with no comments about the four-dwelling scheme.  From highways point of view, this makes no difference, but would like officer assurances that the Civic Society, Architects Panel and parish council have all looked at the enlarged Plot 1 – would like to know what their comments are.

MS:  on Planning View, saw the changes being proposed, and questioned if the site was built exactly as planned and this proposal came in as a subsequent amendment, would we vote for it?  Concluded that we would, and cannot see that the change will significantly alter Plot 2.

EB, in response:

-       to PB, Condition 8 requires details of a 2m high wall as officers felt appropriate as well– as discussed with the agent – to be submitted prior to occupation, so there is no breach at the moment;

-       to HM, regarding reconsultation on the four-dwelling scheme, actually received very few responses from consultees.  The parish council came back, maintaining its original concerns.

BF:  the officer referred to Condition 8 requiring the design details of the wall prior to occupation; shouldn’t this be the completion of the wall?

AC:  agrees.  What if the applicant doesn’t build it?

EB, in response:

-       the condition requires details for approval and the wall to be built in accordance with the details before occupation.

GB:  enforcement action will be taken if it isn’t.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT