Agenda item

Ward

Halliford and Sunbury West

Proposal

Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of a replacement two storey house with rooms in the roof space that includes the installation of 3 no. rear dormers. The provision of a first-floor southern facing balcony.

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out at paragraph 8 of this report.

Description:

Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of a replacement two storey house with rooms in the roof space that includes the installation of 3 no. rear dormers. The provision of a first-floor southern facing balcony.

Additional Information:

Vanya Popova, Planning Officer reported on the following update:

Paragraph 7.9 to note No. 7 Tadmor Close is a bungalow with no first floor accommodation whereas No. 6 does have first floor accommodation.  No change to assessment.in regard to the properties to the rear of the application site.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Speaker One spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-The building did not consider its overbearing impact on neighbouring properties

-the development was exaggerated in bulk and mass and was higher and wider than all other buildings

-The impact on natural light in both neighbouring gardens and homes was of grave concern

-The measurements on Beech Dale’s plans were misleading

-The three-storey build posed a direct threat to well-being and the legal right to enjoy property

-No other house on the road or wider area had a balcony to blatantly survey neighbours with direct vision into bedroom windows

-Neighbours would be directly overlooked by the 15 proposed front windows and 10 rear windows

-The owners had removed trees and hedges, taking away natural habitat for wildlife by fully concreting the front garden

-There were flood risk concerns as this development would impact drainage

-The introduction of a newbuild on the greenbelt boundary was overbearing, hugely disruptive and would set a precedent for others to follow

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Kevin Yates although scheduled to speak for the proposed development, did not arrive in person. His prepared statement was read out by the Committee Manager, raising the following key points:

-The new build was in accordance with planning policy

-The development was intended to be a fully sustainable and eco-friendly family home

-Efforts would be made to limit disruption to neighbours during the build

-A lot of time had been spent discussing this application with the Planning Team prior to submission

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Sandra Dunn spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-The current application did not address issues highlighted in the previously submitted application

-This development was totally out of character on a rural road

-This proposal was not in keeping with the other properties in the surrounding area

-The design of the property did not fit in with the design codes for future development in the borough

-The development paid no regard to the environment as it overlooked greenbelt land which did not fit into surrounding landscape

-The impact on neighbouring properties including their loss of daylight should not be ignored

-There was a duty to respect human rights specifically in relation to neighbouring properties and the enjoyment of their homes

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-The proposed building was bulky and resembled a mansion

-The plans would not make any positive contributions to the surrounding area 

-This proposal was out of place compared to the surrounding locality

-There were 12 letters of objection

-The size of this house was too big for the plot of land it occupied

-There were too many windows across the frontage of the house

-The proposal was well designed and suitable for a family

-Concern was raised regarding the application of the 45 degree vertical and horizontal guide within the plans

-This application was not in breach of planning policy and guidance

The Committee voted on the application as follows:

For: 7

Against: 7

Abstain: 1

Thereafter, by 7 votes in favour, 7 votes against and one abstention, on the Chair’s casting vote the motion to approve the application was agreed.

Decision:

The application was approved.