Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application:-

This application was previously considered by Members of the Plans 1 Sub-Committee on 8 August 2013.  As a decision could not be reached, Members resolved that the application be deferred and submitted for consideration by Members of the Development Control Committee.

As stated in the declarations previously given, Councillor Jackson was granted unconditional dispensation to speak as a member of the public.  As the owner of No. 51 on the first floor of the building, Councillor Jackson made the following representations in objection to the application:-

•  There was an existing extant permission to convert the building into four flats and by the intensification of side and rear extensions, this application sought to increase the number of flats to five.

•  The addition of a fifth flat would push the scale of the building a bit too far resulting in limited parking at the front and outside.

•  As the site was located within Shortlands Conservation Area, unique and special standards needed to be upheld.  The current proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

•  The application included the erection of a 1.8m fence which would change the spatial standards and amenity space of the communal back garden.  If the application were to be granted, a condition should be included to retain the openness of the area. 

In conclusion, Councillor Jackson requested that the application be refused on the grounds of impact on the Conservation Area and overintensification of the site. 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Mehta, Agent for the applicant.  Mr Mehta submitted the following comments:-

•  The proposal was for the addition of a new residential flat at ground floor level including a low-level single storey side and rear extension. The ground floor would consist of 2 residential flats, comprising 1 and 2 bedrooms, with access to the large garden.  Both flats would be dual aspect and generous in size with modest extensions.

•  No objections were received from local residents. The initial application for a similar but larger proposal had been refused earlier in the year and no objections had been made at that time.

•  Having taken on board Councillors’ thoughts and comments during the previous Committee meeting, the design team had reviewed the proposal to try and enhance the scheme further.  In particular, altering the design of the roof on the single-storey side extension.  Having reviewed the proposal and the Council’s policies on side extensions, it appeared that the proposal met with the requirements expected by the Council.  Furthermore, the proposal was subordinate and subservient to the host property and it was considered to be of an acceptable standard.

•  There would be provision for one car parking space per housing unit.

•  With regard to tree works, there were no Tree Preservation Orders in existence.

In response to a Member question, Mr Mehta confirmed that a 3m wide path at the side of the building was available for people to access the rear of the property.  Issues regarding ventilation to the existing flats had been investigated and considered to be acceptable.

The Chief Planner informed Members that should the application be granted, withdrawal of permitted development rights for the erection of a fence could be incorporated into the conditions.  The inclusion of a slab level condition was also suggested.

Having recommended deferral at the previous Committee meeting because the side extension was set back and looked odd when viewed from the front, Councillor Mrs Manning now concluded that nothing further could be done to improve the side extension.  Councillor Mrs Manning therefore moved that the application be granted as recommended with the addition of slab level and access conditions.

Although Councillor Michael was concerned that the side extension would imbalance the area, she was not convinced refusal of the application would stand at appeal.  For this reason, Councillor Michael  agreed that permission should be given as recommended with additional conditions.

Councillor Fawthrop moved refusal of the application on the grounds that the proposal was detrimental to the Conservation Area and overintensive.

Councillor Bennett believed the application would take away the character of the area and he therefore supported refusal.

RESOLVED that the application be granted as recommended subject to the conditions set out in the report with the addition of a further three conditions to read:-

‘13.  Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

14.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no walls or fences shall be erected within the rear garden of the property to be converted into flats without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of visual amenities of the area.

15.  The rear garden of the property shall not be subdivided into separate amenity areas for the flats.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.’