Issue - meetings

Subdivision of the site and construction of a single storey detached dwelling with associated bicycle and bin storage, access, parking, and landscaping works; boundary treatments and new access onto The Courtway.

Recommendation: That Planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.

Lauren Edwards, Planning Officer advised that there was no update to the application, but provided clarification that officers were aware of an ongoing planning enforcement investigation that relates to the two semi-detached properties which are currently being constructed to the south of the site. The Officer informed the committee that she understood that there were some deviations from the approved plans but in her view these would not have a material impact on the application.

The Committee then heard a representation by a Parish Councillor from Carpenders Park objecting to the application.

The Officer then proceeded to provide clarification on the amenity space and parking of the proposed development. The Officer highlighted the information under section 7.7 of the report which sets out the requirements for the amenity space standards of the dwelling to the south of the property and the proposed new dwelling. The 50 square metres that is described under section 7.7.3 is a parcel of the garden and does not include the parking space. The dwellings to the south were approved with one space each. The other dwelling will also have its parking space, fronting Penrose Avenue as previously approved. The space serving the dwelling to the north will have its space at the end of its garden to the left hand side, and the proposed dwelling will have two parking spaces, or one parking space and a garage to the left hand side of the dwelling. Similarly, the parcel of land to the south of the dwelling, a grassed area, that has been taken into consideration and included in the amenity space calculation for the dwelling.

The Officer also responded to a question regarding the Parish Councillor’s concerns of the swept path for the turning that was going over the road on the opposite side of the pavement, confirming that the visibility displays put forward do not show the path going over the pavement on the other side, and they have been reviewed by the highways officer who is content with the information provided.

Members raised concerns regarding the grounds for the previous refusal for planning permission on cramped and contrived form of development, stating that certain elements of the reasons for the previous refusal still exists. In addition, concerns were also raised about the garage dimensions that do not meet the standards, and the overdevelopment issue on the back to back separation distances; why 9 meters is acceptable in this case.

The Officer provided clarification to these concerns; explaining that she did consider whether the applicant could potentially use one of the spaces as storage rather than as a garage, and was of the view that one space to serve the proposed dwelling would not result in demonstrable harm. Furthermore, with regards to the back to back distance; the Officer clarified that in this case it is not a back to back distance, it is a flank to rear distance, and in her view she did not think that 9 meters would have resulted in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67