Agenda item

Application Number: 20/0514 - 1 Middle Close, Camberley, Surrey, GU15 1NZ

Minutes:

The application was for a proposed single storey front extension including two roof lights, a two storey extension to the western side elevation following demolition of the existing garage, change to main roof form, six roof lights to main front roof slope, two rear dormers and fenestration alterations (this application was a resubmission of 19/0701 to allow for alterations to the height of the building and the front gables, alterations to the dormers and fenestration, and the installation of A.C. units) - retrospective.

 

The application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee by Councillor  Edward Hawkins, on the grounds of residents' concerns over size and bulk, and concerns over the inappropriateness of the air conditioning units and their potential impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of 3 Middle Close.

 

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

 

Representations

 

Eleven further written representations has been received, from nine addresses. These objections have been summarised below:

 

Comments which have been addressed in the committee report:

·         Conflict with both national and local plans and supplementary planning documents;

·         Too close to adjoining properties;

·         Development too high, too dominant and overbearing, the increase height of the gables exacerbate this oppressive development;

·         Loss of light;

·         Loss of privacy due to overlooking from the higher gables at the front and alterations to the rear dormers;

·         Out of keeping with character of Middle Close and the surrounding estate;

·         Over development;

·         Developer has had no regard for the neighbours during construction, hours of operation have not been followed, nor have the planning conditions;

·         The as built plans are not an accurate reflection of what has been constructed (position of retaining wall and the location of the garage door is shown as being level with the ground level, it isn’t, it is approximately 0.4 metres above the ground level, with a slope being proposed)

 

Comments which do not raise material planning considerations:

·         Other comments received have related to the original extensions (approved under 19/0234 and varied by 19/0701);

·         Irregularities were reported over a year ago by several residents to planning and enforcement (these concerns have not been ignored, it has taken a year for the application to be valid);

·         General dislike of proposal;

·         Damage has been made to Middle Close by deliveries;

·         The trees to the front of the proposed are overgrown and untidy, this is very uncharacteristic of the road;

·         There are access issues to the garden from the side of the house as it is too narrow;

·         Noise and disturbance caused by building works;

·         Objections have been lost;

[Officer comment: This comment appears to relate to original objections, these are on file with the original file and are not carried over to new applications. For this development neighbouring properties and previous objectors have been notified];

·         The development will set a precedent;

·         Application has been applied for retrospectively;

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the quality of the build and the structure integrity of the retaining wall.

 

New comments:

·         A.C. units are unsightly, excessive and out of scale for a residential dwelling. They are too close to the neighbouring property, result in unreasonable noise pollution as these units are for both heating and cooling and so could be emitting high level sound throughout the year, and are not a safe distance from the neighbouring property [Officer comment: Comments are awaited from Environmental Health];

 

·         Loss of trees and vegetation, development was not built in accordance with condition which sought compliance with the tree protection plan;

[Officer comment: See section 7.5, page 41 of Annex B – Officer’s delegated report for 19/0234. It is regrettable this condition was not followed. However, this vegetation was compromised prior to the first development and was not covered by a TPO. It has now been lost];

 

·         The parking for this property is not being used and there are a lot of cars now on the road. The garages they seem to be foot and half above ground level. [Officer comment: Whilst the application has been made retrospectively, the works have not been finished completely, as such the front driveway and ramp to the garage have not been constructed yet];

 

·         It has insufficient parking

[Officer comment: See section 7.7, page 42 of Annex B];

 

·         Drainage concerns

[Officer comment: The agent has confirmed that the waste water will connect to the mains drainage and the water from guttering and run off will be disposed of on-site through soakaways].

 

Consultation responses

 

Paragraphs 5.2 and 6.5.6, respectively –

Officers are still waiting for the Environmental Health Officer’s comments on the technical specification of the Air Conditioning units, details of which were on 13th July.

 

Revised recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the application be DEFERRED until comments have been received from the EHO, so the impacts of the A.C. units can be fully considered. This is also necessary given the additional representations received.

 

It was felt that, in addition to the receipt and consideration of Environmental Health’s comments on the technical specification of the air conditioning units, Members also needed a further Member Site Visit to consider the size and bulk of the proposal. As a result an amended recommendation to defer the application was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that application 20/0514 be deferred to allow for receipt of the Environmental Health Officer’s comments; and to undertake a Committee Site Visit

 

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                      i.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that all members of the Committee had received various pieces of correspondence in respect of the application and that a Committee Site Visit had taken place; and

                    ii.        Councillor Graham Tapper had spoken to the neighbours of the application site on Roundway and had inspected the application site from their garden, but had made no comment and had come into the meeting with an open mind.

 

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the proposal to defer the application:

Councillors Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Cliff Betton, Mark Gordon, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, David Mansfield, Charlotte Morley, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, John Skipper, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.

 

 

Supporting documents: