Agenda item

The report before members detailed an application for. the demolition of the existing buildings including the existing dwelling and construction of four 2-storey houses with a new access road, car parking and amenity space.

The proposed layout included a spine road to the west of the application site. The proposed dwellings would be laid out with one fronting onto Herbert Road and the other three, to the rear, facing west towards the spine road.

Each house would be provided with an attached garage. It was explained that those properties to the rear would be provided with a double garage whereas that to the Herbert Road frontage would have a triple garage.

The proposal would result in the removal of a number trees with 36 replacement trees, mainly to the western side of the proposed cul-de-sac road and to the boundary with The Lombards.  In addition, hedging would be located to the front and rear boundaries of the proposed properties. A Tree Report and Ecological Survey accompanied the application.

By way of update, staff explained that the contamination condition, included in the list of conditions in the report, would be removed in the event that planning permission was granted..

It was reported that the scheme followed a previous application submitted on the site, refused by the Planning Authority and dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. Staff explained that the main differences between the current scheme and that dismissed at appeal were:

-          A reduction in number of proposed dwellings from 6 to 4;

-          Re-orientation of houses to front either Herbert Road or the west;

-          A reduction in the ridge height of the properties to the rear;

-          An increase in depth for individual properties from 14.45m to 15.3m and increase in width from 13.6m to 14.4m

It was noted that multiple letters of representation, representing twelve properties, had been received.

The application had been called in by Councillor Steven Kelly on the grounds of overdevelopment in a back garden.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response provided by the applicant.

With its agreement Councillor Steven Kelly addressed the Committee. Councillor Kelly stated that the application was an improvement on the previously refused scheme, mainly due to the reduction in houses proposed. He added however that each house would be slightly larger than submitted in the previously refused scheme. Councillor Kelly advised that he called in the application as he wanted the application to be debated by the Committee rather than through delegated authority to the Head of Development & Building Control.

During the discussion, members sought clarification of which trees on the site were to be removed and discussed the impact of a rear garden development on the street scene.  There was debate among Members concerning the size of the proposed dwellings in relation to their individual plot sizes and the impact of the development on the Emerson Park Special Policy Area. In response to enquiry, it was explained that there were no specific guidelines on the minimum size required for amenity space of such dwellings, rather the judgment for staff was to assess the quality of the amenity space provided.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted; however, following a motion to refuse, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the plot sizes for the individual properties were too small and that therefore the proposed properties would also appear out of character with neighbouring properties.

The motion to refuse was passed by 6 votes to 5. Councillors Brace, Brice-Thompson, Pain, Hawthorn, Ower and Durant voted for the motion to refuse planning permission. The vote for the resolution to refuse planning permission was passed by 7 votes to 4. Councillors Brace, Brice-Thompson, Pain, Thompson, Hawthorn, Ower and Durant voted for the resolution to refuse planning permission.