Proposed dwelling.
493
The Committee considered an application for a proposed dwelling at 57 Dunthorne Road, Colchester. The application previously been considered by the Committee and that consideration had been deferred to enable further discussions to take place with a view to the proposed dwelling being amended to a bungalow. The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out. The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Eleanor Moss, Planning Officer, presented the report and together with Andrew Tyrrell, Planning Manager, assisted the Committee in its deliberations. It was explained that, if the application was approved, it would be necessary to amend Conditions 4 and 5 to provide for the removal of Permitted Development rights for windows to the dwellings.
Derek Gearing, on behalf of the residents of Green Lane, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. He was of the view that the application did not meet the requirements asked for by the Committee when it previously considered the application. He acknowledged the proposed roof pitch had been lowered but it was still a two storey dwelling situated forward of the building line and at the narrowest part of Green Lane. He considered the area contained predominantly single storey dwellings which meant the proposal was out of keeping with the neighbourhood. He welcomed the proposed condition in relation to parking provision but was concerned about potential non-compliance, particularly given access requirements for emergency vehicles and the popularity of the Lane with pedestrians notwithstanding the lack of footway. He was of the view that the potential negative impact on the neighbourhood should not be encouraged. He also explained his concerns regarding the impact of the construction works and the potential for subsidence in the area. He considered the application would inconvenience the majority of the existing residents who were not being listened to.
John Spencer addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. He explained that the proposed ridge height of the dwelling had been lowered in accordance with the aspirations of the Committee members when the application was considered previously. He observed that the proposal was now of a lower height than the chalet opposite, accordingly, he asked the Committee members to approve the application.
Councillor Smith attended and with the consent of the Chairman addressed the Committee. He was of the view that the Committee members had sought further negotiations with the applicant to secure a bungalow on the site, not a two storey property. He considered that a bungalow would be more suitable in the neighbourhood and he also referred to the application for a bungalow on the site, submitted in 2002 and refused at an Appeal. He asked the Committee members to remain true to their previous aspiration to achieve a bungalow on the site.
The Planning Officer explained that there was a number of two storey properties in the Green Lane area, which had an eclectic mix of properties. There were also examples of different sized gardens and the proposed amenity space in the current application was in accordance with the approved standards. She further explained the Highway Authority had not objected to the proposals and the proposed parking provision complied with the approved parking standards. In addition, hours of construction work would be controlled by means of a proposed condition should approval be granted. She confirmed that in negotiation with the applicant, planning officers had tried to accommodate a bungalow on the site but it had not been possible to do so without impacting on the amount of amenity space such that this element would not meet the approved standards. She finally confirmed that the amended application, as now submitted, fully complied with all necessary standards.
Some Committee members considered there were no material grounds on which to refuse the application. Other Committee members, whilst acknowledging the application’s compliance with approved standards, were concerned at the sub-division of the application site and were disappointed that it had not been possible, through further negotiation, to achieve a compliant application based around a bungalow. There was concern that the proposal was not in-keeping with the neighbourhood.
The Planning Officer further explained that since the previous application had been refused at Appeal significant policy changes had taken place which meant that this decision could not be considered as a material consideration in relation to the current application. These policy changes were in relation to the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012, which provided for a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and a revised policy which reduced amenity space standards. She further explained that the application the subject of the Appeal had been refused on the grounds of a lack of division between the proposed dwellings, which the current application had adequately addressed.
As the discussion suggested that the Committee may be minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation in the report on grounds of over-development and not in-keeping with the neighbourhood, in accordance with the Committee’s procedures in these circumstances, the Chairman invited the Planning Manager to indicate the significance of the associated risks should the Committee overturn the Officer’s recommendation. The Planning Manager explained the difficulty of refusing on grounds of being over development and not in-keeping as the application accorded with amenity space standards and he had identified at least four chalet type and other two storey dwellings in Green Lane whilst attending the site visit. He also reminded the Committee members that they had been advised during their previous consideration that a bungalow was likely to lead to a sub-standard amenity area due to the increase in footprint size required for a bungalow but that negotiation may be able to achieve a lower ridge height for the proposed dwelling. The Planning Manager added that it may be possible for officers to consider the unsuitability of the site development as potential grounds for refusal if the Committee was so minded as, with the constraints and issues under debate, this would effectively be what was suggested if the application was refused.
A proposal, which was seconded, to refuse the application was lost (FOUR vote FOR, FOUR voted AGAINST and TWO ABSTAINED and the Chairman having used his casting vote AGAINST).
RESOLVED (FOUR vote FOR, THREE voted AGAINST and THREE ABSTAINED) that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the amendment of Conditions 4 and 5 to provide for the removal of Permitted Development rights for windows to the dwellings.