Agenda item

The application was for the demolition of existing single storey annexe and construction of a two storey attached 3 bed house with associated access and parking.

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Rebecca Jennings-Evans, on the grounds of overdevelopment, not in keeping with the street scene and failing to comply with the Lightwater Village Design Statement. 

Members received the following updates on the application:

²Corrections

 Para 7.5.9 should read ‘…due to the lack of adequate front boundary treatment’.

Representations

Four written representations have been received following publication of the Committee Agenda which raise the following issues:

·         The application would be over development of the site and would not be in keeping with the surrounding properties [see section 7.5 of the officer’s report];

·         The proposal would lead to further traffic congestion on the roads left hand bend directly where The Annex is situated and the access from the road would be inadequate [see section 7.7 of the officer’s report];

·         This planning application would not conform to the Lightwater design statement [see section 7.5 of the officer’s report].

On 3 November 2020 the applicant also made the following representation in response to the publication of the committee report regarding the (i) width of the proposed plot; (ii) mixed character of the road; (iii) weight afforded to approved application 20/0347/FFU; and, (iv) creation of driveway and boundary treatment. 

Officer’s comments

Point (i):

In relation to the width of the proposed plot and its relation to local character, it is noted that in the same side of the road as the application property the dwellings to the west are bungalows and the properties to the east are two storey dwellings linked by garages.  Directly opposite there are two storey houses.  The development in the immediate vicinity of the application site is road frontage development with two storey dwellings and plot widths that do not fall below 10m. The proposed plot, at an approximate 8.2m width, would be narrower than those on its immediate context, which is considered the most sensitive.

The applicant makes reference to the width of plots 9 and 9A further to the west and it is noted that plot 9 would be about the same width as the proposed site and 9A would be slightly narrower. However, these plots accommodate bungalows, which is a different development from the proposed two storey dwelling. As bungalows, the built form is lesser and so smaller plots would be more appropriate by comparison. In addition, the Inspector in para 11 of the 2018 Appeal Decision (page 94 of the Agenda) notes that this area has a different character and, therefore, is not directly comparable. This approach was followed in assessing this proposal.

The plot width for previous application 17/0707 was approximately 7.7m and the plot width for previous application 16/0664 was about 7.6m. In light of the above context, it is not considered the revised plot width would be materially different from the previously dismissed appeals.

Point (ii):

See section 7.4 of the officer’s report, where the proposal’s impact on the character of the area is discussed.

Point (iii):

The provision of a new dwelling means that the effect on the streetscene would be materially different than a householder extension, as recognised by the Inspector in para 15 of the 2018 Appeal Decision (page 95 of the Agenda). The weight afforded to this permission is a matter of planning judgment and is discussed in para 7.5.4 of the officer’s report.

Point (iv):

The creation of a driveway is discussed in paras 7.5.8 and 7.5.9 of the officer’s report. In para 15 of the 2017 Appeal Decision (pages 91 and 95 of the Agenda, respectively) the Inspector noted that although these parking arrangements could be achieved under permitted development, it is unlikely that this would be provided without the need created by the proposed dwelling and the same approach was followed in this assessment.

Both appeal decisions refer that the parking spaces, of themselves, would be similar to others in Mount Pleasant Close, however it is the opening up of the site’s frontage that would emphasise the proposal’s harm to the character of the area (see para 14 of both 2017 and 2018 Appeal Decisions, pages 91 and 95 of the Agenda, respectively). It is also noted that the plans submitted with the 2017 application show a partial boundary treatment to the front elevation, which did not preclude the Inspector of reaching this conclusion. The same approach was followed in assessing this application. It is also noted that there would not be sufficient space to provide soft landscaping to enclose the parking area and soften the proposed built form, as required by Principle 6.8 of the RDG.”

The officer recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan, seconded by Councillor Garrett and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that application 20/0510 be refused.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that Councillor Peter Barnett declared that he had been in correspondence with the applicant and Councillor Sharon Galliford had visited objectors to the application on his behalf.

Note 2

A roll call vote on the application was conducted and the voting was as follows:

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Paul Deach, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise, Victoria Wheeler and Helen Whitcroft.

Voting against the officer recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Peter Barnett, Cliff Betton and Graham Tapper.