Proposed new dwelling.

Proposed new dwelling.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection, particularly as it helped members understand the constraints of the site.  Councillor Woodward considered that the application should be refused as the proposal would have an overbearing impact on adjoining properties (particularly to the property to the north of the site), would represent an overdevelopment of the site, and on design grounds.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, also a Local Ward Member, expressed reservations about the design and commented that some form of development might be acceptable if the building was moved further back on the site.  Therefore, he felt unable to support the application in its present form.

The design approach was debated and a number of members felt that the siting of the development needed to be reconsidered in order to minimise the impact on adjoining properties.  Councillor RI Matthews urged officers to make every effort to address the concerns with the applicant.

Councillor AM Toon questioned whether there was merit in deferring the application to discuss possible amendments with the applicant.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the orientation of the site was not square and adjusting the position of the building further back would move the mass closer to adjoining properties and officers did not consider that the consequential impact on residential amenity would be acceptable.  He explained the design approach and commented that the re-positioning of the building, resulting in a larger area of forecourt, would be a discordant feature in the streetscape.

A number of Members felt that the design and position of the building could be adjusted without significant impact on neighbouring properties.

In response to a comment by Councillor NL Vaughan about the lack of detail provided, the Senior Planning Officer advised that a condition was recommended in respect of external materials and it was intended that contemporary materials would be used but these would be sympathetic to the streetscape.

Councillor Woodward commented on the potential impact of the proposal, in its current form, on the outlook and amenity of the adjoining property, ‘Winston’.

The Central Team Leader outlined the reasons for refusal in relation to the previous application [CW08/2658/F refers] and said that re-positioning the development further back on the site could have a more demonstrable detrimental impact on neighbouring properties than the current proposal.

RESOLVED:

That 

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The proposal would have an overbearing impact on adjoining properties;

2.            Would represent an overdevelopment of the site; and

3.            The design approach is not considered suitable.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]