Agenda item

Lauren Edwards, Senior Planning Officer provided the following update.

It had been brought to officers’ attention that the shape of the location plan did not match the shape of the block plan in so far as reflecting the display boundary, which is on the eastern side, or the right hand side of the image on the screen.

The block plan has since been amended so that it accurately reflects that of the location plan.

Mr. Dale spoke against the application on behalf of himself and the residents of Watford Road.

Mr. Sullivan spoke in support of the application.

A District Councillor and Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

The case officer responded to the points raised by the speakers informing the Committee that she had suggested a parking management plan at Condition 7 (C7). Currently, she had only suggested tracking diagrams be submitted with regards to the three parking spaces to the front, because she and the highways officers were confident regarding the two parking spaces to the back, but that could include those parking spaces as well, should Members wish.

The case officer clarified that the precedent is not a planning material consideration, and in her view this development is only acceptable on its own merits at this time.

There is an existing building and an existing access, and whilst the character is set out in the report, Watford Road is generally of street fronting dwellings with rear gardens.

In this case, because it is an existing building, and that there would be integration of some soft landscaping in place, existing hardstanding is acceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

In response to concerns regarding the access and overlooking, the case officer outlined a comparison between the existing and proposed property layouts, focusing on the rear garden being converted into hardstanding for a dwelling. The officer also explained that there would be no other alterations to the plot layout, with neighbouring dwellings facing similar distances on the neighbouring roads.

The case officer provided clarification to questions arising from the discussion around the potential harm that could be caused by sewage, stating that sewage and drainage are not a material planning consideration.

The officer also reiterated that she is satisfied with the size of the parking spaces, and as mentioned previously, they are currently suggesting a condition for the layout, management and tracking for the parking spaces at the front, and it could also include the ones to the rear, should Members wish for them to be added.

The officer also responded to another point regarding the original approval stating that this building wasn’t going to be for habitation, by confirming that at the time that development was considered acceptable, on the basis of the number of dwellings that were proposed, and that that was an ancillary building that supported the use of the flats that now sit within the semi detached building to the front.

The case officer also confirmed that there is a condition at C6  which does remove classes that officers consider relevant. It does not include the upward story but that could be added within the permitted development rights that are removed, should Members feel that that would be appropriate.

Members raised concerns around overdevelopment and also requested further information on parking and (C7).

The officer explained to the Committee that the report also sets out a worst case scenario, as far as if it was only the two spaces that could be retained and not the three spaces as shown on the block plan. For the reasons set out in the report, the officer still considers that to be acceptable. However, officers have suggested C7, which would ask for more details to be provided to all three spaces and they would be allocated, one for each unit. However, it would have to be satisfied in its entirety.

With regards to concerns around the back land development; Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader reiterated that there is very little change to the structure of the building; with minor changes to some of the doors and windows, and hard standing being removed, and soft landscaping being added, and advised, if Members consider this to be overdevelopment it would need to be justified what harm could result from these changes.

The case officer provided a response to a question raised around the 5 year housing supply, informing the Committee that it is set out in the report that a 5 year housing supply cannot be demonstrated, and it is included in the planning balance, but the officer considers it to be acceptable on its own merits, and must be had regard to, should Members be minded to refuse the scheme.

Members of the Committee asked officers to consider an amendment to Condition 6 (C6), focusing on permitted development rights.

Claire Westwood, Development Management Team Leader highlighted concerns around preventing upward extensions and advised that classes A, D and F have been considered appropriate.

Members also discussed the building’s capability for upward extension without alterations that would impact permitted development rights.

The officer proposed further examination of different classes and clarifications for Members before amending conditions.

The Chair, Councillor Chris Whately-Smith moved, seconded by Councillor Harry Davies, that Planning permission be granted subject to condition and the completion of a Section 106 agreement (securing a financial affordance housing contribution) with the amendment to

C6 (PD Removal) to prevent upward extension without planning permission.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 6 For, 2 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to condition and the completion of a Section 106 agreement (securing a financial affordance housing contribution) with the amendment with the amendment to C6 (PD Removal) to prevent upward extension without planning permission.

Condition 6 to read:

Immediately following the implementation of this permission, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any other revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no development within the following Classes of Schedule 2 of the Order shall take place.

Part 1

Class A - enlargement, improvement or other alteration to the dwelling

Class AA - enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys

Class D - erection of a porch

Class F- Provision of hardsurfacing

Part 2

Class A - erection, construction, maintenance or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure

No development of any of the above classes shall be constructed or placed on any part of the land subject of this permission.

Reason: To ensure adequate planning control over further development having regard to the limitations of the site and neighbouring properties and in the interests of the visual amenities of the site and the area in general, in accordance with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013