Agenda item

We considered the report of the application, and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement financial contribution towards affordable housing in the local area.

 

The Vice-Chair allowed Mr. A. Edwards, Clerk to Raglan Community Council to speak on behalf of the Community Council in respect of the application.  In doing so, the following points were noted:

 

·         Raglan Community Council objects on principle as it considers that the actual development is classed as back land development, not in line with any frontage of Caestory Avenue or Ethley Drive.

 

·         The Planning Department has made reference under paragraph 5.7.1 of the report of the application.  The Community Council considers that without implementing the Well-Being of Future Generations Act 2015, it will have a social impact on the loss of well-being and the loss of privacy and amenity on the existing properties in this area.

 

·         The Community Council has concerns regarding the size and bulk of the property in relation to the existing two storey dwellings which have been developed over time. Also, the bungalows and dormer bungalows which are in close proximity to the property. The development will create an overbearing aspect to these existing dwellings.

 

·         Paragraph 5.4.1 of the report of the application makes reference to the Juliet Balcony.  This provides a loss of privacy to some of the properties on and around the plot where the window will be directly overlooking.

 

·         The principle objection is the overbearing impact on neighbouring properties, the loss of privacy to adjoining properties and the applicant has been advised to provide information to the Highways Authority which has not yet been provided regarding a concealed entrance on a narrow bend.

 

·         This application is in conflict with Policies H3, SD4, NE1, NP5 and MV1.

 

Mr. J. Pope, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         There have been 60 registered objections to the application.

 

·         Overbearing and shadowing nature of the property to neighbouring properties due to the height, mass and bulk of the property.

 

·         The height of the property is compared to immediate neighbouring properties and the effect on the well-being of local residents due to loss of privacy and sunlight is a concern.

 

·         The design of the property materials are out of character with the surrounding properties.

 

·         The risk of additional vehicles exiting and entering the property on an existing treacherous double blind bend.

 

·         The loss of any Birch trees against the recommendation of the Tree Officer.

 

·         Objectors are also concerned regarding some of the factual inaccuracies contradictions and misleading statements in the report of the application, namely:

 

-       The proposal is 8.3m high at the ridgeline. This is 1.1m higher than the next tallest in the vicinity, and not similar in ridge height as stated in the report of the application but 16% higher than the next highest. It will be 40% higher than those properties in The Willows and up to 25% higher than some properties in Caestory. It will be prominent and dominate from those houses and in between those houses.

 

-       The Planning Officer states that 8.3 metres is within the standard height of a two storey house.  Research suggests that it’s 6.1 metres to 7.1 metres.

 

-       The property is 16 metres in length, 11 metres wide and 8.3 metres in height.  This creates a mass of 88 sq. metres of wall facing Caestory and 110 sq. metres facing Ethley Drive and the Willows.  This mass is only 10 metres away from Ethley Drive and with three storeys, totally overbears, blocks light, creates privacy issues due to the elevation of the windows.

 

-       This proposal is four times bigger square footage than the next largest house in the vicinity.  It is out of character by virtue of its size.

 

-       The Planning Officer’s report states that it uses materials that have a design in keeping with the vicinity, e.g., the grey window frames, wooden doors, dormers and grey slate roofs. No houses in Caestory, the Willows or Ethley Drive have these features.

 

-       The Tree Officer stated that he would be unable to support a proposal that would remove the Birch trees. The latest plans indicate that three trees are being removed but the Planning report indicates that two trees are being removed. No further recommendations have been received from the Tree Officer.

 

-       The blind double bend onto which vehicles will enter and exit is dangerous adding additional traffic to the existing and proposed new dwelling.  Delivery vans and people parking on the bend will only add to the risk.

 

-       The road is used as a walk through by all including school children and elderly people.

 

-       Excessive garden grabbing.

 

-       Misleading definitions regarding storeys of the property. 2.5 storeys were mentioned.  In the report of the application, there are only two storeys mentioned.

 

·         In short, the objections to the application are that the proposal is too high, too wide, too long, is overbearing, blocks light, affects privacy, is out of character, very little similarity in design to existing properties, four times the size of neighbouring houses, destroying habitat and risk to life and serious injury due to traffic having to negotiate a double blind bend.

 

Having considered the report of the application, the following points were noted:

 

·         The proposed dwelling in this location would not be acceptable.  It is overbearing and over-dominant to nearby properties. The principle of building at this location is sound but not the proposed development, as outlined in the report of the application.

 

·         The proposed development is too big for the plot.

 

·         The proposed development does not reflect the pattern of development and the surrounding dwellings.

 

·         There is still an issue surrounding a highways matter which could have been addressed before being presented to Committee.

 

·         There is no drainage condition.  There will be a large drive creating additional run-off.

 

·         The proposed development would not be in keeping with the surrounding properties.

 

·         A smaller appropriately designed property at this location would be more in keeping with the surrounding area. Negotiations with the applicant should be undertaken with a view to them coming back to Planning Committee with a revised proposal that is more appropriate for the location.

 

·         Refusal of the application could be considered as the application was contrary to Policy DES1.

 

·         Six of the eight Birch trees will be retained.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that we be minded to defer consideration of application DC/2018/00096 to a future meeting of Planning Committee to allow officers to liaise with the applicant with a view to revising the application that would be more in keeping with the surrounding area.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

In favour of deferral             -           8

Against deferral                    -           0

Abstentions                           -           4

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that we be minded to defer consideration of application DC/2018/00096 to a future meeting of Planning Committee to allow officers to liaise with the applicant with a view to revising the application that would be more in keeping with the surrounding area.