Application Number: 19/P2885      Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2885 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Demolition of garage and erection of a one bedroom 2 storey detached house

The Committee noted the officers report,  presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Officers acknowledged that recent information had been received that suggested that the application had floor area of less than the required 58m² but this was the case it was only slightly less and Officers still regarded the scheme as acceptable.

The Committee received a verbal representation from two objectors  who made points including:

·         There are already problems with parking and dangerous turning vehicles – this proposal will make both worse and reduce pedestrian safety further

·         The property is not big enough, there must be a reason for the setting of minimum space standards

·         The proposal does not have enough outdoor space and overlooks a main road

·         The proposal will block sunlight to its neighbour

·         The proposal will cause security issues by creating a narrow side entrance.

·         It is not logical to replace a garage with a house

The Committee received a verbal representation from the applicant’s agent who made points including:

·         The Garage is no longer fit for use

·         A recent application was refused, but this proposal does compliment Gore Road

·         It would provide adequate internal and amenity space

·         4 out of 5 adjacent roads are of the same width and have the same issues. This site has a dropped kerb but other kerbs could be used

·         The main habitable rooms have windows facing east.

The Ward Councillor, Anthony Fairclough, made a verbal representation including points:

·         Amplify resident’s concerns

·         This application will make the turning circle more difficult and dangerous

·         The proposal will affect neighbour amenity

·         The standard of accommodation is not policy compliant; it is too small and does not meet the minimum outdoor space standards

·         It is not acceptable to suggest that the future occupants can take out a gym membership

The Planning Team Leader North addressed issues raised by objectors:

·         Regarding  the turning circle in Gore Road, he explained that issues with vehicle turning cannot be considered as a reason to withhold planning permission as the applicant is perfectly entitled to erect a 1m fence on their boundary, tomorrow, without any permission required. If this was done it would have the same effect on the turning circle as the proposal.

·         The site is in a CPZ and the proposal is permit free and so will not impact on parking.

·         Any effect on light is in non-habitable rooms

·         The previous  application was not refused on highway grounds

The Planning Team Leader North confirmed that the owner/occupier of the land south of the application site was consulted on the application but chose not to respond. It was suggested at the meeting that this land was owned by Thames water.

In reply to Members’ questions Officer made comments including:

·         The amenity space is less than would normally expect, but as the house is only one bedroomed Officers have taken a balanced view and believe that the proposal would work.

·         It is possible to ask the applicant for a construction logistic plan regarding vehicle turning

·         Issues with vehicle turning cannot be considered as a constraint on planning as the applicant could erect a 1m fence on their boundary, tomorrow, without any permission required and this would have the same effect on the turning circle as the proposal

·         We do carry out checks on measurements supplied by applicants, in this case there is a mall discrepancy

·         The 58m² is for two storeys, a one bedroomed flat would have a minimum space standard of 50m²

Members made comments including:

·         Concerned about the floor space being less than 58m² , this sets a dangerous precedent

·         Should not defer this for 2 months given that size difference is not confirmed and is only very small

A member proposed a deferral for this item, so that the discrepancy in measurement could be investigated, but this did not receive a seconder.

A refusal, for the reasons of size and overdevelopment was proposed and seconded. This was not carried by the vote and Committee then voted on the Officers recommendation

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement